Trial reportInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021
Efficacy of Artificial-Intelligence-Driven Differential-Diagnosis List on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Physicians: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Study.
Trial report in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Concordance of randomised controlled trials for artificial intelligence interventions with the CONSORT-AI reporting guidelines.Nature communications · 2024Pooled it
- Effects of a Differential Diagnosis List of Artificial Intelligence on Differential Diagnoses by Physicians: An Exploratory Analysis of Data from a Randomized Controlled Study.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Trial
- Multimodal neuroimaging and AI integration in cognitive disorders: advances, challenges, and future directions for precision medicine.Psychoradiology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in sleep medicine: assessing the diagnostic precision of ChatGPT-4.Journal of clinical sleep medicine : JCSM : official publication of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine · 2025Article
- Mapping and Summarizing the Research on AI Systems for Automating Medical History Taking and Triage: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Exploring the Potential of an AI Chatbot as a Supplementary Tool for Nutritional Prescription Hospital Discharge: A Preliminary Study.Scientifica · 2025Article
- Facilitating Trust Calibration in Artificial Intelligence-Driven Diagnostic Decision Support Systems for Determining Physicians' Diagnostic Accuracy: Quasi-Experimental Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Reforming China's Secondary Vocational Medical Education: Adapting to the Challenges and Opportunities of the AI Era.JMIR medical education · 2024Article
- Longitudinal Changes in Diagnostic Accuracy of a Differential Diagnosis List Developed by an AI-Based Symptom Checker: Retrospective Observational Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Effects of Combinational Use of Additional Differential Diagnostic Generators on the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Differential Diagnosis List Developed by an Artificial Intelligence-Driven Automated History-Taking System: Pilot Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2023Article
- Design, implementation, and evaluation of the computer-aided clinical decision support system based on learning-to-rank: collaboration between physicians and machine learning in the differential diagnosis process.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2023Article
- Should artificial intelligence be used in conjunction with Neuroimaging in the diagnosis of Alzheimer's disease?Frontiers in aging neuroscience · 2023Review
- Incidence of Diagnostic Errors Among Unexpectedly Hospitalized Patients Using an Automated Medical History-Taking System With a Differential Diagnosis Generator: Retrospective Observational Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Clinical Decision Support Systems for Diagnosis in Primary Care: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven automated medical-history-taking systems with AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists on physicians' diagnostic accuracy was shown. However, considering the negative effects of AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists such as omission (physicians reject a correct diagnosis suggested by AI) and commission (physicians accept an incorrect diagnosis suggested by AI) errors, the efficacy of AI-driven automated medical-history-taking systems without AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists on physicians' diagnostic accuracy should be evaluated.
objectiveThe present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of AI-driven automated medical-history-taking systems with or without AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists on physicians' diagnostic accuracy.
methodsThis randomized controlled study was conducted in January 2021 and included 22 physicians working at a university hospital. Participants were required to read 16 clinical vignettes in which the AI-driven medical history of real patients generated up to three differential diagnoses per case. Participants were divided into two groups: with and without an AI-driven differential-diagnosis list.
resultsThere was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two groups (57.4% vs. 56.3%, respectively;
conclusionsPhysicians' diagnostic accuracy using AI-driven automated medical history did not differ between the groups with and without AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.