Literature DB >> 27432950

Boosting medical diagnostics by pooling independent judgments.

Ralf H J M Kurvers1, Stefan M Herzog2, Ralph Hertwig2, Jens Krause3, Patricia A Carney4, Andy Bogart5, Giuseppe Argenziano6, Iris Zalaudek7, Max Wolf3.   

Abstract

Collective intelligence refers to the ability of groups to outperform individual decision makers when solving complex cognitive problems. Despite its potential to revolutionize decision making in a wide range of domains, including medical, economic, and political decision making, at present, little is known about the conditions underlying collective intelligence in real-world contexts. We here focus on two key areas of medical diagnostics, breast and skin cancer detection. Using a simulation study that draws on large real-world datasets, involving more than 140 doctors making more than 20,000 diagnoses, we investigate when combining the independent judgments of multiple doctors outperforms the best doctor in a group. We find that similarity in diagnostic accuracy is a key condition for collective intelligence: Aggregating the independent judgments of doctors outperforms the best doctor in a group whenever the diagnostic accuracy of doctors is relatively similar, but not when doctors' diagnostic accuracy differs too much. This intriguingly simple result is highly robust and holds across different group sizes, performance levels of the best doctor, and collective intelligence rules. The enabling role of similarity, in turn, is explained by its systematic effects on the number of correct and incorrect decisions of the best doctor that are overruled by the collective. By identifying a key factor underlying collective intelligence in two important real-world contexts, our findings pave the way for innovative and more effective approaches to complex real-world decision making, and to the scientific analyses of those approaches.

Entities:  

Keywords:  collective intelligence; dermatology; groups; mammography; medical diagnostics

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27432950      PMCID: PMC4978286          DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1601827113

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A        ISSN: 0027-8424            Impact factor:   11.205


  38 in total

1.  Evidence for a collective intelligence factor in the performance of human groups.

Authors:  Anita Williams Woolley; Christopher F Chabris; Alex Pentland; Nada Hashmi; Thomas W Malone
Journal:  Science       Date:  2010-09-30       Impact factor: 47.728

Review 2.  Group performance and decision making.

Authors:  Norbert L Kerr; R Scott Tindale
Journal:  Annu Rev Psychol       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 24.137

3.  The nature of adverse events in hospitalized patients. Results of the Harvard Medical Practice Study II.

Authors:  L L Leape; T A Brennan; N Laird; A G Lawthers; A R Localio; B A Barnes; L Hebert; J P Newhouse; P C Weiler; H Hiatt
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1991-02-07       Impact factor: 91.245

Review 4.  Collective cognition in animal groups.

Authors:  Iain D Couzin
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2008-12-06       Impact factor: 20.229

Review 5.  Diagnostic error and clinical reasoning.

Authors:  Geoffrey R Norman; Kevin W Eva
Journal:  Med Educ       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 6.251

6.  Economics. The promise of prediction markets.

Authors:  Kenneth J Arrow; Robert Forsythe; Michael Gorham; Robert Hahn; Robin Hanson; John O Ledyard; Saul Levmore; Robert Litan; Paul Milgrom; Forrest D Nelson; George R Neumann; Marco Ottaviani; Thomas C Schelling; Robert J Shiller; Vernon L Smith; Erik Snowberg; Cass R Sunstein; Paul C Tetlock; Philip E Tetlock; Hal R Varian; Justin Wolfers; Eric Zitzewitz
Journal:  Science       Date:  2008-05-16       Impact factor: 47.728

7.  Regret graphs, diagnostic uncertainty and Youden's Index.

Authors:  J Hilden; P Glasziou
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1996-05-30       Impact factor: 2.373

8.  When two heads are better than one: Interactive versus independent benefits of collaborative cognition.

Authors:  Allison A Brennan; James T Enns
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2015-08

9.  When two heads are better than one and when they can be worse: The amplification hypothesis.

Authors:  Asher Koriat
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2015-07-13

10.  Educational interventions to improve screening mammography interpretation: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Berta M Geller; Andy Bogart; Patricia A Carney; Edward A Sickles; Robert Smith; Barbara Monsees; Lawrence W Bassett; Diana M Buist; Karla Kerlikowske; Tracy Onega; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Sebastien Haneuse; Deirdre Hill; Matthew G Wallis; Diana Miglioretti
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-06       Impact factor: 3.959

View more
  31 in total

1.  Benefits of Independent Double Reading in Digital Mammography: A Theoretical Evaluation of All Possible Pairing Methodologies.

Authors:  Patrick C Brennan; Aarthi Ganesan; Miguel P Eckstein; Ernest Usang Ekpo; Kriscia Tapia; Claudia Mello-Thoms; Sarah Lewis; Mordechai Z Juni
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2018-07-29       Impact factor: 3.173

2.  Wisdom of the expert crowd prediction of response for 3 neurology randomized trials.

Authors:  Pavel Atanasov; Andreas Diamantaras; Amanda MacPherson; Esther Vinarov; Daniel M Benjamin; Ian Shrier; Friedemann Paul; Ulrich Dirnagl; Jonathan Kimmelman
Journal:  Neurology       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 9.910

3.  The wisdom of crowds for visual search.

Authors:  Mordechai Z Juni; Miguel P Eckstein
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 11.205

Review 4.  Shared responsibility in collective decisions.

Authors:  Marwa El Zein; Bahador Bahrami; Ralph Hertwig
Journal:  Nat Hum Behav       Date:  2019-04-22

5.  Crowd control: Reducing individual estimation bias by sharing biased social information.

Authors:  Bertrand Jayles; Clément Sire; Ralf H J M Kurvers
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2021-11-29       Impact factor: 4.475

6.  Individuals fail to reap the collective benefits of diversity because of over-reliance on personal information.

Authors:  Alan Novaes Tump; Max Wolf; Jens Krause; Ralf H J M Kurvers
Journal:  J R Soc Interface       Date:  2018-05       Impact factor: 4.118

7.  Peer Discussion Decreases Practice Intensity and Increases Certainty in Clinical Decision-Making Among Internal Medicine Residents.

Authors:  Neha Bansal Etherington; Caitlin Clancy; R Benson Jones; C Jessica Dine; Gretchen Diemer
Journal:  J Grad Med Educ       Date:  2021-06-14

8.  Can Simple Transmission Chains Foster Collective Intelligence in Binary-Choice Tasks?

Authors:  Mehdi Moussaïd; Kyanoush Seyed Yahosseini
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-11-23       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  "They don't Know Better than I do": People Prefer Seeing for Themselves Over Using the Wisdom of Crowds in Perceptual Decision Making.

Authors:  Merav Yonah; Yoav Kessler
Journal:  J Cogn       Date:  2021-06-21

10.  Pooling decisions decreases variation in response bias and accuracy.

Authors:  Ralf H J M Kurvers; Stefan M Herzog; Ralph Hertwig; Jens Krause; Max Wolf
Journal:  iScience       Date:  2021-06-17
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.