Evaluating the utility of available differential diagnosis systems
Results of an evaluation testing the accuracy and performance of two differential diagnosis systems, Meditel and DXplain, obtained by utilizing 103 consecutive clinical cases culled from the Internal Medicine Service at the University of Michigan, are presented. Each case was run in parallel on both systems utilizing available history, physical, and lab findings at admission and comparing the resultant differential list to the final hospital discharge diagnoses. It was found that these systems use fundamentally different approaches to the problem of differential diagnosis, which produces significant differences in their speed and in the usability of their differential lists. Meditel produces generally more accurate and complete differential diagnosis lists, is faster than DXplain, and has the advantage of local use on a PC. DXplain is more user-friendly in its interaction, and has a better explanation facility, but appears less able to separate the multiple diagnoses that patients often exhibit.
