首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health >A Perspective from a Case Conference on Comparing the Diagnostic Process: Human Diagnostic Thinking vs. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Decision Support Tools
【2h】

A Perspective from a Case Conference on Comparing the Diagnostic Process: Human Diagnostic Thinking vs. Artificial Intelligence (AI) Decision Support Tools

机译:关于比较诊断过程的案例会议的观点:人工诊断思想与人工智能(AI)决策支持工具

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Artificial intelligence (AI) has made great contributions to the healthcare industry. However, its effect on medical diagnosis has not been well explored. Here, we examined a trial comparing the thinking process between a computer and a master in diagnosis at a clinical conference in Japan, with a focus on general diagnosis. Consequently, not only was AI unable to exhibit its thinking process, it also failed to include the final diagnosis. The following issues were highlighted: (1) input information to AI could not be weighted in order of importance for diagnosis; (2) AI could not deal with comorbidities (see Hickam’s dictum); (3) AI was unable to consider the timeline of the illness (depending on the tool); (4) AI was unable to consider patient context; (5) AI could not obtain input information by themselves. This comparison of the thinking process uncovered a future perspective on the use of diagnostic support tools.
机译:人工智能(AI)为医疗行业做出了巨大贡献。然而,它对医学诊断的影响尚未得到很好的探索。在这里,我们研究了一项试验,比较了日本临床会议诊断中计算机和掌握母师之间的思维过程,重点是一般诊断。因此,不仅AI无法表现出其思维过程,它也未能包含最终诊断。突出显示以下问题:(1)对AI的输入信息无法按重要性诊断顺序加权; (2)AI无法处理合并症(见HICKAM的“令人责任”; (3)AI无法考虑疾病的时间表(取决于工具); (4)AI无法考虑患者背景; (5)AI无法自行获取输入信息。思维过程的这种比较未来对使用诊断支持工具的未来视角。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号