Collective intelligence improves probabilistic diagnostic assessments

Medical residents' perceptions of group biases in medical decision making: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Systematic biases in group decision making (i.e., group biases) may result in suboptimal decisions and potentially harm patients. It is not well known how impaired group decision making in patient care may affect medical training. This study aimed to explore medical residents' experiences and perspectives regarding impaired group decision making and the role of group biases in medical decision making.

METHODS

This study used a qualitative approach with thematic analysis underpinned by a social constructionist epistemology. Semi-structured interviews of medical residents were conducted at a single internal medicine residency program. Residents were initially asked about their experiences with suboptimal medical decision making as a group or team. Then, questions were targeted to several group biases (groupthink, social loafing, escalation of commitment). Interviews were transcribed and transferred to a qualitative data analysis software. Thematic analysis was conducted to generate major themes within the dataset.

RESULTS

Sixteen interviews with residents revealed five major themes: (1) hierarchical influence on group decision making; (2) group decision making under pressure; (3) post-call challenges in decision making; (4) interactions between teamwork and decision making; and (5) personal and cultural influences in group decision making. Subthemes were also identified for each major theme. Most residents were able to recognize groupthink in their past experiences working with medical teams. Residents perceived social loafing or escalation of commitment as less relevant for medical team decision making.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings provide unique insights into the complexities of group decision making processes in teaching hospitals. Team hierarchy significantly influenced residents' experiences with group decision making-most group decisions were attributed to consultants or senior team members, while lower ranking team members contributed less and perceived fewer opportunities to engage in group decisions. Other factors such as time constraints on decision making, perceived pressures from other staff members, and challenges associated with post-call days were identified as important barriers to optimal group decision making in patient care. Future studies may build upon these findings to enhance our understanding of medical team decision making and develop strategies to improve group decisions, ultimately leading to higher quality patient care and training.

Artificial Intelligence vs Clinician Performance in Estimating Probabilities of Diagnoses Before and After Testing

This diagnostic study compares the performance of artificial intelligence (AI) with that of human clinicians in estimating the probability of diagnoses before and after testing.

Effects of Combinational Use of Additional Differential Diagnostic Generators on the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Differential Diagnosis List Developed by an Artificial Intelligence-Driven Automated History-Taking System: Pilot Cross-Sectional Study

BACKGROUND

Low diagnostic accuracy is a major concern in automated medical history-taking systems with differential diagnosis (DDx) generators. Extending the concept of collective intelligence to the field of DDx generators such that the accuracy of judgment becomes higher when accepting an integrated diagnosis list from multiple people than when accepting a diagnosis list from a single person may be a possible solution.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study is to assess whether the combined use of several DDx generators improves the diagnostic accuracy of DDx lists.

METHODS

We used medical history data and the top 10 DDx lists (index DDx lists) generated by an artificial intelligence (AI)-driven automated medical history-taking system from 103 patients with confirmed diagnoses. Two research physicians independently created the other top 10 DDx lists (second and third DDx lists) per case by imputing key information into the other 2 DDx generators based on the medical history generated by the automated medical history-taking system without reading the index lists generated by the automated medical history-taking system. We used the McNemar test to assess the improvement in diagnostic accuracy from the index DDx lists to the three types of combined DDx lists: (1) simply combining DDx lists from the index, second, and third lists; (2) creating a new top 10 DDx list using a 1/n weighting rule; and (3) creating new lists with only shared diagnoses among DDx lists from the index, second, and third lists. We treated the data generated by 2 research physicians from the same patient as independent cases. Therefore, the number of cases included in analyses in the case using 2 additional lists was 206 (103 cases × 2 physicians' input).

RESULTS

The diagnostic accuracy of the index lists was 46% (47/103). Diagnostic accuracy was improved by simply combining the other 2 DDx lists (133/206, 65%, P<.001), whereas the other 2 combined DDx lists did not improve the diagnostic accuracy of the DDx lists (106/206, 52%, P=.05 in the collective list with the 1/n weighting rule and 29/206, 14%, P<.001 in the only shared diagnoses among the 3 DDx lists).

CONCLUSIONS

Simply adding each of the top 10 DDx lists from additional DDx generators increased the diagnostic accuracy of the DDx list by approximately 20%, suggesting that the combinational use of DDx generators early in the diagnostic process is beneficial.