Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33915991›Full record

ArticleJournal of Intelligence2021

Unity Is Intelligence: A Collective Intelligence Experiment on ECG Reading to Improve Diagnostic Performance in Cardiology.

Luca Ronzio, Andrea Campagner, Federico Cabitza, Gian Franco Gensini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of Intelligence, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Experimental evidence for structured information-sharing networks reducing medical errors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023
    Article
  3. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Luca RonzioDipartimento di Informatica, Sistemistica e Comunicazione, University of Milano-Bicocca, Viale Sarca 336, 20126 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0003-2182-4511
Andrea CampagnerDipartimento di Informatica, Sistemistica e Comunicazione, University of Milano-Bicocca, Viale Sarca 336, 20126 Milan, Italy.
Federico CabitzaDipartimento di Informatica, Sistemistica e Comunicazione, University of Milano-Bicocca, Viale Sarca 336, 20126 Milan, Italy.ORCID 0000-0002-4065-3415
Gian Franco GensiniIRCCS MultiMedica, Sesto San Giovanni, 20099 Milan, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical errors have a huge impact on clinical practice in terms of economic and human costs. As a result, technology-based solutions, such as those grounded in artificial intelligence (AI) or collective intelligence (CI), have attracted increasing interest as a means of reducing error rates and their impacts. Previous studies have shown that a combination of individual opinions based on rules, weighting mechanisms, or other CI solutions could improve diagnostic accuracy with respect to individual doctors. We conducted a study to investigate the potential of this approach in cardiology and, more precisely, in electrocardiogram (ECG) reading. To achieve this aim, we designed and conducted an experiment involving medical students, recent graduates, and residents, who were asked to annotate a collection of 10 ECGs of various complexity and difficulty. For each ECG, we considered groups of increasing size (from three to 30 members) and applied three different CI protocols. In all cases, the results showed a statistically significant improvement (ranging from 9% to 88%) in terms of diagnostic accuracy when compared to the performance of individual readers; this difference held for not only large groups, but also smaller ones. In light of these results, we conclude that CI approaches can support the tasks mentioned above, and possibly other similar ones as well. We discuss the implications of applying CI solutions to clinical settings, such as cases of augmented 'second opinions' and decision-making.

Indexed as

collective intelligencediagnostic errorECG readingmedical decision support

Identifiers

PMID33915991
PMCPMC8167709

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.