Slashdot Mirror
88% Of Medical 'Second Opinions' Give A Different Diagnosis - And So Do Some AI (mayoclinic.org)
First, "A new study finds that nearly 9 in 10 people who go for a second opinion after seeing a doctor are likely to leave with a refined or new diagnosis from what they were first told," according to an article shared by Slashdot reader schwit1:
Researchers at the Mayo Clinic examined 286 patient records of individuals who had decided to consult a second opinion, hoping to determine whether being referred to a second specialist impacted one's likelihood of receiving an accurate diagnosis. The study, conducted using records of patients referred to the Mayo Clinic's General Internal Medicine Division over a two-year period, ultimately found that when consulting a second opinion, the physician only confirmed the original diagnosis 12 percent of the time. Among those with updated diagnoses, 66% received a refined or redefined diagnosis, while 21% were diagnosed with something completely different than what their first physician concluded.
But in a related story, Slashdot reader sciencehabit writes that four machine-learning algorithms all performed better than currently-used algorithm of the American College of Cardiology, according to newly-published research, which concludes that "machine-learning significantly improves accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction, increasing the number of patients identified who could benefit from preventive treatment, while avoiding unnecessary treatment of others."
"I can't stress enough how important it is," one Stanford vascular surgeon told Science magazine, "and how much I really hope that doctors start to embrace the use of artificial intelligence to assist us in care of patients."
But in a related story, Slashdot reader sciencehabit writes that four machine-learning algorithms all performed better than currently-used algorithm of the American College of Cardiology, according to newly-published research, which concludes that "machine-learning significantly improves accuracy of cardiovascular risk prediction, increasing the number of patients identified who could benefit from preventive treatment, while avoiding unnecessary treatment of others."
"I can't stress enough how important it is," one Stanford vascular surgeon told Science magazine, "and how much I really hope that doctors start to embrace the use of artificial intelligence to assist us in care of patients."
Pretty much this. Cardiovascular risk is one of the best studied disease states known. Which is probably why they studied it. Even then, the 'AI' algorithms only improved risk stratification around 5% - nothing to sneeze at but hardly earth shattering.
OK, now, for extra credit lets risk stratify middle age hypertensive diabetics who are depressed.
Like the typical 'real world' patient. I'd just love some help here but the underlying data just doesn't support it. Which is kinda surprising since we've been studying these folks for a while. Simple medical problems are simple. Typical medical problems are not.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
I would expect that many people who ask for a second opinion have a reason to ask for a second opinion: in fact, the article even mentions the situation where the first doctor recommended they do so. What would be more telling would be if they did a large study and gave EVERYONE second opinions, and then told us how many differed. This smells like another case of "lies, damned lies, and statistics", which is designed to make the Mayo Clinic look good.
Correct. A sample size of 286 is pretty small and without knowing details on the data it's hard to draw from conclusions, unless you want to put out a press release. As for the /. header, 88% didn't give a different diagnosis 21% did, with some 67% getting a refined or redefined diagnosis. I would guess that the second opinion MD, knowing what the first said, would focus in on those aspects of the diagnosis to confirm or refine it; medicine is an inexact science, I'd be more worried about 90% agreement than the numbers from this study. More to the point, what was the actual conditions of the patients and what was the accuracy of diagnosis once the condition was positively identified.
Mayo later points out that this study supports getting second opinions even though they cost money. Duh, an outfit that makes money off of MD visits supports more visits? I'm shocked, shocked. Next thing you know there'll be gambling at Rick's...
What was interesting is the conclusion "There were no significant differences between provider types;" i.e. PA's and NPs did just as well as MDs; so using them as the primary entry point in healthcare may be one good way to lower costs while maintaining the quality of care.
As for AI, it certainly is good to use it to aid in diagnosis, as it can learn about specific conditions and continue to build a database to draw from, far beyond an MD's ability to see a broad range of patients to help refine his or her diagnostic capability. AI is good at drawing conclusions from large datasets but not good at recognizing other symptoms that only manifest themselves in person, such as odors, odd way of walking or speaking, that can clue an MD into looking further.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
I was thinking more of the opposite. A doctor who is asked for a second opinion knows the patient does not want the same diagnosis. He knows that the patient is shopping around for the "best" diagnosis. He knows that the only way he is likely to be able to start treatment is to give a different diagnosis. I would say that medical diagnosis are complicated things that patients are not likely to be able to gauge correctly. If a patient is better at diagnosis than a doctor, and better able to tell if the correct one has been given, why even use doctors?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.