ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2022
Comparison of Diagnostic Recommendations from Individual Physicians versus the Collective Intelligence of Multiple Physicians in Ambulatory Cases Referred for Specialist Consultation.
Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Comparison of the clinicians' and experts' assessments of rehabilitation service needs for patients in the middle of China.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Development and Validation of a Bayesian Network Predicting Intubation Following Hospital Arrival Among Injured Children.Journal of pediatric surgery · 2025Article
- Retrieval-Based Diagnostic Decision Support: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2024Article
- Collective Intelligence Increases Diagnostic Accuracy in a General Practice Setting.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Automating hybrid collective intelligence in open-ended medical diagnostics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- 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
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundStudies report higher diagnostic accuracy using the collective intelligence (CI) of multiple clinicians compared with individual clinicians. However, the diagnostic process is iterative, and unexplored is the value of CI in improving clinical recommendations leading to a final diagnosis.
methodsTo compare the appropriateness of diagnostic recommendations advised by individual physicians versus the CI of physicians, we entered actual consultation requests sent by primary care physicians to specialists onto a web-based CI platform capable of collecting diagnostic recommendations (next steps for care) from multiple physicians. We solicited responses to 35 cases (12 endocrinology, 13 gynecology, 10 neurology) from ≥3 physicians of any specialty through the CI platform, which aggregated responses into a CI output. The primary outcome was the appropriateness of individual physician recommendations versus the CI output recommendations, using recommendations agreed upon by 2 specialists in the same specialty as a gold standard. The secondary outcome was the recommendations' potential for harm.
resultsA total of 177 physicians responded. Cases had a median of 7 respondents (interquartile range: 5-10). Diagnostic recommendations in the CI output achieved higher levels of appropriateness (69%) than recommendations from individual physicians (45%; χ LIMITATIONS: Cases were from a single institution. CI was solicited using a single algorithm/platform.
conclusionsWhen seeking specialist guidance, diagnostic recommendations from the CI of multiple physicians are more appropriate than recommendations from most individual physicians, measured against specialist recommendations. Although CI provides useful recommendations, some have potential for harm. Future research should explore how to use CI to improve diagnosis while limiting harm from inappropriate tests/therapies.
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.