ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2023
Automating hybrid collective intelligence in open-ended medical diagnostics.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Individual incentives that promote collective intelligence.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Human-AI collectives most accurately diagnose clinical vignettes.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025Article
- Aggregating multiple test results to improve medical decision-making.PLoS computational biology · 2025Article
- Artificial intelligence-, organoid-, and organ-on-chip-powered models to improve pre-clinical animal testing of vaccines and immunotherapeutics: potential, progress, and challenges.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Review
- AI-enhanced collective intelligence.Patterns (New York, N.Y.) · 2024Review
- Medical residents' perceptions of group biases in medical decision making: a qualitative study.BMC medical education · 2024Article
- Boosting wisdom of the crowd for medical image annotation using training performance and task features.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2024Article
- Collective Intelligence Increases Diagnostic Accuracy in a General Practice Setting.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024Article
- Progressive muscle relaxation in pandemic times: bolstering medical student resilience through IPRMP and Gagne's model.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Automating hybrid collective intelligence in open-ended medical diagnostics.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Collective intelligence has emerged as a powerful mechanism to boost decision accuracy across many domains, such as geopolitical forecasting, investment, and medical diagnostics. However, collective intelligence has been mostly applied to relatively simple decision tasks (e.g., binary classifications). Applications in more open-ended tasks with a much larger problem space, such as emergency management or general medical diagnostics, are largely lacking, due to the challenge of integrating unstandardized inputs from different crowd members. Here, we present a fully automated approach for harnessing collective intelligence in the domain of general medical diagnostics. Our approach leverages semantic knowledge graphs, natural language processing, and the SNOMED CT medical ontology to overcome a major hurdle to collective intelligence in open-ended medical diagnostics, namely to identify the intended diagnosis from unstructured text. We tested our method on 1,333 medical cases diagnosed on a medical crowdsourcing platform: The Human Diagnosis Project. Each case was independently rated by ten diagnosticians. Comparing the diagnostic accuracy of single diagnosticians with the collective diagnosis of differently sized groups, we find that our method substantially increases diagnostic accuracy: While single diagnosticians achieved 46% accuracy, pooling the decisions of ten diagnosticians increased this to 76%. Improvements occurred across medical specialties, chief complaints, and diagnosticians' tenure levels. Our results show the life-saving potential of tapping into the collective intelligence of the global medical community to reduce diagnostic errors and increase patient safety.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.