Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38606597›Full record

ArticleMedical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making2024

Collective Intelligence Increases Diagnostic Accuracy in a General Practice Setting.

Matthew D Blanchard, Stefan M Herzog, Juliane E Kämmer, Nikolas Zöller, Olga Kostopoulou, Ralf H J M Kurvers

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Human-AI collectives most accurately diagnose clinical vignettes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  5. Rising to the Challenge of Rare Diagnoses.Journal of general internal medicine · 2025
    Article
  6. Article
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

6 authors.

Matthew D BlanchardThe University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5557-8617
Stefan M HerzogMax Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
Juliane E KämmerDepartment of Social and Communication Psychology, Institute for Psychology, University of Goettingen, Germany.
Nikolas ZöllerMax Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.
Olga KostopoulouInstitute for Global Health Innovation, Imperial College London, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-9643-0838
Ralf H J M KurversMax Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-3460-0392

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGeneral practitioners (GPs) work in an ill-defined environment where diagnostic errors are prevalent. Previous research indicates that aggregating independent diagnoses can improve diagnostic accuracy in a range of settings. We examined whether aggregating independent diagnoses can also improve diagnostic accuracy for GP decision making. In addition, we investigated the potential benefit of such an approach in combination with a decision support system (DSS).

methodsWe simulated virtual groups using data sets from 2 previously published studies. In study 1, 260 GPs independently diagnosed 9 patient cases in a vignette-based study. In study 2, 30 GPs independently diagnosed 12 patient actors in a patient-facing study. In both data sets, GPs provided diagnoses in a control condition and/or DSS condition(s). Each GP's diagnosis, confidence rating, and years of experience were entered into a computer simulation. Virtual groups of varying sizes (range: 3-9) were created, and different collective intelligence rules (plurality, confidence, and seniority) were applied to determine each group's final diagnosis. Diagnostic accuracy was used as the performance measure.

resultsAggregating independent diagnoses by weighing them equally (i.e., the plurality rule) substantially outperformed average individual accuracy, and this effect increased with increasing group size. Selecting diagnoses based on confidence only led to marginal improvements, while selecting based on seniority reduced accuracy. Combining the plurality rule with a DSS further boosted performance. DISCUSSION: Combining independent diagnoses may substantially improve a GP's diagnostic accuracy and subsequent patient outcomes. This approach did, however, not improve accuracy in all patient cases. Therefore, future work should focus on uncovering the conditions under which collective intelligence is most beneficial in general practice. HIGHLIGHTS: We examined whether aggregating independent diagnoses of GPs can improve diagnostic accuracy.Using data sets of 2 previously published studies, we composed virtual groups of GPs and combined their independent diagnoses using 3 collective intelligence rules (plurality, confidence, and seniority).Aggregating independent diagnoses by weighing them equally substantially outperformed average individual GP accuracy, and this effect increased with increasing group size.Combining independent diagnoses may substantially improve GP's diagnostic accuracy and subsequent patient outcomes.

Indexed as

General PracticeClinical Decision-MakingComputer SimulationDecision Support Systems, ClinicalDiagnostic ErrorsFemaleGeneral PractitionersHumansMalecollective intelligencedecision support systemsdiagnostic accuracygeneral practicemedical diagnosticswisdom of crowds

Identifiers

PMID38606597
PMCPMC11102639

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.