Syndrome Diagnosis: Human Intuition or Machine Intelligence?

  • Braaten O
  • Friestad J
N/ACitations
Citations of this article
8Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

The aim of this study was to investigate whether artificial intelligence methods can represent objective methods that are essential in syndrome diagnosis. Most syndromes have no external criterion standard of diagnosis. The predictive value of a clinical sign used in diagnosis is dependent on the prior probability of the syndrome diagnosis. Clinicians often misjudge the probabilities involved. Syndromology needs objective methods to ensure diagnostic consistency, and take prior probabilities into account. We applied two basic artificial intelligence methods to a database of machine-generated patients - a 'vector method' and a set method. As reference methods we ran an ID3 algorithm, a cluster analysis and a naive Bayes' calculation on the same patient series. The overall diagnostic error rate for the the vector algorithm was 0.93%, and for the ID3 0.97%. For the clinical signs found by the set method, the predictive values varied between 0.71 and 1.0. The artificial intelligence methods that we used, proved simple, robust and powerful, and represent objective diagnostic methods.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Braaten, O., & Friestad, J. (2008). Syndrome Diagnosis: Human Intuition or Machine Intelligence? The Open Medical Informatics Journal, 2(1), 149–159. https://doi.org/10.2174/1874431100802010149

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free