Efficacy of Artificial-Intelligence-Driven Differential-Diagnosis List on the Diagnostic Accuracy of Physicians: An Open-Label Randomized Controlled Study

• Main Authors: Yukinori Harada, Shinichi Katsukura, Ren Kawamura, Taro Shimizu
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Published: MDPI AG 2021-02-01
• Series: International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
• Subjects: artificial intelligence; automated medical-history-taking system; commission errors; diagnostic accuracy; differential-diagnosis list; omission errors
• Online Access: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/4/2086

Background: The efficacy of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven automated medical-history-taking systems with AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists on physicians’ diagnostic accuracy was shown. However, considering the negative effects of AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists such as omission (physicians reject a correct diagnosis suggested by AI) and commission (physicians accept an incorrect diagnosis suggested by AI) errors, the efficacy of AI-driven automated medical-history-taking systems without AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists on physicians’ diagnostic accuracy should be evaluated. Objective: The present study was conducted to evaluate the efficacy of AI-driven automated medical-history-taking systems with or without AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists on physicians’ diagnostic accuracy. Methods: This randomized controlled study was conducted in January 2021 and included 22 physicians working at a university hospital. Participants were required to read 16 clinical vignettes in which the AI-driven medical history of real patients generated up to three differential diagnoses per case. Participants were divided into two groups: with and without an AI-driven differential-diagnosis list. Results: There was no significant difference in diagnostic accuracy between the two groups (57.4% vs. 56.3%, respectively; <i>p</i> = 0.91). Vignettes that included a correct diagnosis in the AI-generated list showed the greatest positive effect on physicians’ diagnostic accuracy (adjusted odds ratio 7.68; 95% CI 4.68–12.58; <i>p</i> < 0.001). In the group with AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists, 15.9% of diagnoses were omission errors and 14.8% were commission errors. Conclusions: Physicians’ diagnostic accuracy using AI-driven automated medical history did not differ between the groups with and without AI-driven differential-diagnosis lists.