ArticleCureus2023
Medical Diagnosis Reimagined as a Process of Bayesian Reasoning and Elimination.
Article in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- REASONING BEYOND ACCURACY: EXPERT EVALUATION OF LARGE LANGUAGE MODELS IN DIAGNOSTIC PATHOLOGY.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- The Evidence-Based Medicine Management of Endometriosis Should Be Updated for the Limitations of Trial Evidence, the Multivariability of Decisions, Collective Experience, Heuristics, and Bayesian Thinking.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- First-Line Antituberculosis Drug Challenge Reactions in Drug Reaction With Eosinophilia and Systemic Symptoms Syndrome in an HIV Endemic Setting.The journal of allergy and clinical immunology. In practice · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence-enhanced patient evaluation: bridging art and science.European heart journal · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article delves into the interface between the art of medical diagnosis and the mathematical foundations of probability, the Bayes theorem. In a healthcare ecosystem witnessing an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven transformation, understanding the convergence becomes crucial for physicians. Contrary to viewing AI as a mysterious "black box," we demonstrate how every diagnostic decision by a medical practitioner is, in essence, Bayesian reasoning in action. The Bayes theorem is a mathematical translation of systematically updating our belief: it quantifies how an additional piece of information updates our prior belief in something. Using a clinical scenario of Kartagener syndrome, we showcase the parallels between a physician's evolving diagnostic thought process and the mathematical updating of prior beliefs with new evidence. By reimagining medical diagnosis through the lens of Bayes, this paper aims to demystify AI, accentuating its potential role as an enhancer of clinical acumen rather than a replacement. The ultimate vision presented is one of harmony, where AI serves as a symbiotic partner to physicians, with the shared goal of holistic patient care.
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.