ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2025
Cracking the code: a head-to-head comparison of expert clinicians and artificial intelligence in diagnosing rare diseases.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Applications in MRI for the Diagnosis and Management of Osteonecrosis of the Femoral Head: A Comprehensive Review.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- From Variant Interpretation to Biomarker Translation: Multi-omics Integration in Inherited Neuromuscular Diseases.Human mutation · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPatients with rare diseases often face prolonged diagnostic journeys due to the low prevalence and diverse clinical presentations of these conditions. In Germany, specialized centers for rare diseases, established at university hospitals, offer targeted diagnostic and therapeutic care to reduce diagnostic delays. Tools like "Isabel Healthcare" can support clinicians by streamlining the differential diagnosis process and aiding in the accurate identification of rare conditions.
resultsThe study included 100 patients with a mean age of 44 years. "Isabel Healthcare DDx companion" and the interdisciplinary case conferences generated a total of 727 diagnosis suggestions. Among the top ten diagnoses suggested by "Isabel Healthcare DDx companion", 28% matched at least one diagnosis identified during the interdisciplinary case conferences. The diagnoses suggested as "more likely" by "Isabel Healthcare DDx companion" showed a higher correlation with the differential diagnoses and procedures identified during the interdisciplinary case conferences, suggesting a potential alignment in clinical decision-making processes.
conclusionThis study has demonstrated the potential of the differential diagnostic tool "Isabel Healthcare DDx companion" to assist in patient diagnosis. However, discrepancies between the tool's findings and expert decisions suggest that, although it can support clinicians in decision-making, its independent effectiveness may be limited by accurately filtering and interpreting the essential medical history required for a precise diagnosis.
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.