ArticleJMIR medical informatics2022
Incidence of Diagnostic Errors Among Unexpectedly Hospitalized Patients Using an Automated Medical History-Taking System With a Differential Diagnosis Generator: Retrospective Observational Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.
- Integrating AI-based triage in primary care: a qualitative study of Swedish healthcare professionals' experiences applying normalization process theory.BMC primary care · 2025Article
- From lab to life: technological innovations in transforming cancer metastasis detection and therapy.Discover oncology · 2025Review
- Navigating the AI Revolution in Medicine-Adopting Strategies for Medical Education.Medical science educator · 2025Article
- Mapping and Summarizing the Research on AI Systems for Automating Medical History Taking and Triage: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Article
- Influences on trust in the use of AI-based triage-an interview study with primary healthcare professionals and patients in Sweden.Frontiers in digital health · 2025Article
- Current and future state of evaluation of large language models for medical summarization tasks.npj health systems · 2025Article
- Facilitating Trust Calibration in Artificial Intelligence-Driven Diagnostic Decision Support Systems for Determining Physicians' Diagnostic Accuracy: Quasi-Experimental Study.JMIR formative research · 2024Article
- Healthcare leaders' experiences of implementing artificial intelligence for medical history-taking and triage in Swedish primary care: an interview study.BMC primary care · 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
- ChatGPT-Generated Differential Diagnosis Lists for Complex Case-Derived Clinical Vignettes: Diagnostic Accuracy Evaluation.JMIR medical informatics · 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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAutomated medical history-taking systems that generate differential diagnosis lists have been suggested to contribute to improved diagnostic accuracy. However, the effect of these systems on diagnostic errors in clinical practice remains unknown.
objectiveThis study aimed to assess the incidence of diagnostic errors in an outpatient department, where an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven automated medical history-taking system that generates differential diagnosis lists was implemented in clinical practice.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective observational study using data from a community hospital in Japan. We included patients aged 20 years and older who used an AI-driven, automated medical history-taking system that generates differential diagnosis lists in the outpatient department of internal medicine for whom the index visit was between July 1, 2019, and June 30, 2020, followed by unplanned hospitalization within 14 days. The primary endpoint was the incidence of diagnostic errors, which were detected using the Revised Safer Dx Instrument by at least two independent reviewers. To evaluate the effect of differential diagnosis lists from the AI system on the incidence of diagnostic errors, we compared the incidence of these errors between a group where the AI system generated the final diagnosis in the differential diagnosis list and a group where the AI system did not generate the final diagnosis in the list; the Fisher exact test was used for comparison between these groups. For cases with confirmed diagnostic errors, further review was conducted to identify the contributing factors of these errors via discussion among three reviewers, using the Safer Dx Process Breakdown Supplement as a reference.
resultsA total of 146 patients were analyzed. A final diagnosis was confirmed for 138 patients and was observed in the differential diagnosis list from the AI system for 69 patients. Diagnostic errors occurred in 16 out of 146 patients (11.0%, 95% CI 6.4%-17.2%). Although statistically insignificant, the incidence of diagnostic errors was lower in cases where the final diagnosis was included in the differential diagnosis list from the AI system than in cases where the final diagnosis was not included in the list (7.2% vs 15.9%, P=.18).
conclusionsThe incidence of diagnostic errors among patients in the outpatient department of internal medicine who used an automated medical history-taking system that generates differential diagnosis lists seemed to be lower than the previously reported incidence of diagnostic errors. This result suggests that the implementation of an automated medical history-taking system that generates differential diagnosis lists could be beneficial for diagnostic safety in the outpatient department of internal medicine.
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.