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; = 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; < 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.