4.6 Article

Collective Intelligence Meets Medical Decision-Making: The Collective Outperforms the Best Radiologist

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0134269

关键词

-

资金

  1. B-Types project through Leibniz Competition [SAW-2013-IGB-2]
  2. American Cancer Society [SIRSG-07-271, SIRSG-07-272, SIRSG-07-273, SIRSG-07-274-01, SIRSG-07-275, SIRSG-06-281, SIRSG-09-270-01, SIRSG-09-271-01, SIRSG-06-290-04]
  3. Breast Cancer Stamp Fund
  4. National Cancer Institute Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium [U01CA63740, U01CA86076, U01CA86082, U01CA70013, U01CA69976, U01CA63731, U01CA70040, HHSN261201100031C]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

While collective intelligence (CI) is a powerful approach to increase decision accuracy, few attempts have been made to unlock its potential in medical decision-making. Here we investigated the performance of three well-known collective intelligence rules (majority, quorum, and weighted quorum) when applied to mammography screening. For any particular mammogram, these rules aggregate the independent assessments of multiple radiologists into a single decision (recall the patient for additional workup or not). We found that, compared to single radiologists, any of these CI-rules both increases true positives (i.e., recalls of patients with cancer) and decreases false positives (i.e., recalls of patients without cancer), thereby overcoming one of the fundamental limitations to decision accuracy that individual radiologists face. Importantly, we find that all CI-rules systematically outperform even the best-performing individual radiologist in the respective group. Our findings demonstrate that CI can be employed to improve mammography screening; similarly, CI may have the potential to improve medical decision-making in a much wider range of contexts, including many areas of diagnostic imaging and, more generally, diagnostic decisions that are based on the subjective interpretation of evidence.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据