Comparison of physician and artificial intelligence-based symptom checker diagnostic accuracy

Symptom checkers are increasingly used to assess new symptoms and navigate the health care system. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based symptom checker (Ada) and physicians regarding the presence/absence of an inflammatory rheumatic disease (IRD)...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Rheumatology international 2022-12, Vol.42 (12), p.2167-2176
Hauptverfasser: Gräf, Markus, Knitza, Johannes, Leipe, Jan, Krusche, Martin, Welcker, Martin, Kuhn, Sebastian, Mucke, Johanna, Hueber, Axel J., Hornig, Johannes, Klemm, Philipp, Kleinert, Stefan, Aries, Peer, Vuillerme, Nicolas, Simon, David, Kleyer, Arnd, Schett, Georg, Callhoff, Johanna
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Symptom checkers are increasingly used to assess new symptoms and navigate the health care system. The aim of this study was to compare the accuracy of an artificial intelligence (AI)-based symptom checker (Ada) and physicians regarding the presence/absence of an inflammatory rheumatic disease (IRD). In this survey study, German-speaking physicians with prior rheumatology working experience were asked to determine IRD presence/absence and suggest diagnoses for 20 different real-world patient vignettes, which included only basic health and symptom-related medical history. IRD detection rate and suggested diagnoses of participants and Ada were compared to the gold standard, the final rheumatologists’ diagnosis, reported on the discharge summary report. A total of 132 vignettes were completed by 33 physicians (mean rheumatology working experience 8.8 (SD 7.1) years). Ada’s diagnostic accuracy (IRD) was significantly higher compared to physicians (70 vs 54%, p  = 0.002) according to top diagnosis. Ada listed the correct diagnosis more often compared to physicians (54 vs 32%, p  
ISSN:1437-160X
0172-8172
1437-160X
DOI:10.1007/s00296-022-05202-4