Differential Diagnosis Assessment in Ambulatory Care With a Digital Health History Device: Pseudorandomized Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Digital health history devices represent a promising wave of digital tools with the potential to enhance the quality and efficiency of medical consultations. They achieve this by providing physicians with standardized, high-quality patient history summaries and facilitating the development of differential diagnoses (DDs) before consultation, while also engaging patients in the diagnostic process. OBJECTIVE: This study evaluates the efficacy of one such digital health history device, diagnosis and anamnesis (DIANNA), in assisting with the formulation of appropriate DDs in an outpatient setting. METHODS: A pseudorandomized controlled trial was conducted with 101 patients seeking care at the University Hospital Geneva emergency outpatient department. Participants presented with various conditions affecting the limbs, back, and chest. The first 51 patients were assigned to the control group, while the subsequent 50 formed the intervention group. In the control group, physicians developed DD lists based on traditional history-taking and clinical examination. In the intervention group, physicians reviewed DIANNA-generated DD reports before interacting with the patient. In both groups, a senior physician independently formulated a DD list, serving as the gold standard for comparison. RESULTS: The study findings indicate that DIANNA use was associated with a notable improvement in DD accuracy (mean 79.3%, SD 24%) compared with the control group (mean 70.5%, SD 33%; P=.01). Subgroup analysis revealed variations in effectiveness based on case complexity: low-complexity cases (1-2 possible DDs) showed 8% improvement in the intervention group (P=.08), intermediate-complexity cases (3 possible DDs) showed 17% improvement (P=.03), and high-complexity cases (4-5 possible DDs) showed 15% improvement (P=.92). The intervention was not superior to the control in low-complexity cases (P=.08) or high-complexity cases (P=.92). Overall, DIANNA successfully determined appropriate DDs in 81.6% of cases, and physicians reported that it helped establish the correct DD in 26% of cases. CONCLUSIONS: The study suggests that DIANNA has the potential to support physicians in formulating more precise DDs, particularly in intermediate-complexity cases. However, its effectiveness varied by case complexity and further validation is needed to assess its full clinical impact. These findings highlight the potential role of digital health history devices such as DIANNA in improving clinical decision-making and diagnostic accuracy in medical practice. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03901495; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT03901495.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".