Google Used To Diagnose Disease 167
dptalia writes "About 20% of all diseases are misdiagnosed, a percentage that has remained steady since the 1930s. However, scientists have discovered that by inputting the key symptoms into Google they can get the correct diagnosis about 58% of the time. For rare and unusual diseases, this provides doctors the information they need to get a correct cure. Of course, Google is only as good as its knowledge base, and its users, so this isn't a cure for everything."
20% error compared to 42% error of Google? (Score:5, Insightful)
Since we're using famous websites (Score:5, Insightful)
The contribution weight of better/senior/more respected doctors should be higher compared to new graduates. The wide open public should not be allowed to write, but should be allowed to read it.
This way better healthcare will be available in poor countries with Internet access, people will be able to double-check their diagnosis online and better doctors will be able to make a name for themselves the way CowboyNeal has.
I would prefer (Score:5, Insightful)
misgivings... (Score:2, Insightful)
Latent Hypochondriacs will type in some general symptoms and find that they have the dreaded newest and hippest malady. I foresee needless worrying and driven-up-the-wall family members.
If Google Bombs are still extant, what's to stop a special interest group from planting links to "cures" for wildly improbable scenarios?
"Caveat, surf-or" is never out of style, I s'pose...
Re:Gives you ideas (Score:3, Insightful)
The article is full of hype (Score:3, Insightful)
In other words, they took a very tiny sample, and then cherry-picked the good results from the bad ones. There's no mention of any serious statistical analysis (why pick 26 as a sample size? why pick 3 results instead of 4 or 5?). And there's no mention of any "control" experiment (e.g. guessing the answer, or perhaps looking it up in a medical textbook). This is a classic example of how to fit the facts to the desired conclusion.
Re:20% error compared to 42% error of Google? (Score:3, Insightful)
The blurb isn't much to begin with - it is only 28 cases that were difficult to diagnose.
Even so, there isn't much information about the 28 cases. Were those 28 cases all misdiagnosed at one point, or were only 20% of them were issues? Also, how accurate are search engines on correctly diagnosed diseases?
The internet is useful in picking up diseases with a unique symptom, but is less effective if the disease's most prominant symptom matches with anthoer common disease. As an example, Vomiting and Diarrhea [google.com] may seem like something simple that can be waited out for a days. However, I turned out to have something a bit more serious - IIRC, it was Gastroenteritis [wrongdiagnosis.com], but it was a long time since I had it.
I'd post using my nick, but this is a bit into my medical history.
No... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's saying of the 20% that's mis-diagnosed, Google correctly identified 58% of those.
However, what no one has brought up is that when something is misdiagnosed, no one knows until they do the autopsy, so you can't just do simple math to lower the error rate to 8%. As you suggest, while google does better when the doctor is wrong, Google is worse than the doctor when he's correct. I'm not sure it's even correct to assume that if the doctor used Google the diagnoses would be better or worse, since there is an element of human judgment in medical practice.
What is does suggest is that doctors and patients should consider using Google to do a check on their patients and themselves for diagnosis and treatment options.
Re:20% error compared to 42% error of Google? (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a very, very important topic, by the way (Score:3, Insightful)
It is too often the case that our search for information about alleviating our ill health, diseases, disorders and pain is limited by the amount of money that we have to give to doctors and hospitals. It is too often that the doctors themselves are wrong when diagnosing the causes of our symptoms. It is too often that doctors fail to learn from the mistakes they make when attempting to diagnose ill health and diseases.
It is time for people to be given a mechanism to empower them in the search for good health, a mechanism that does not depend upon how much money they have with which to purchase the opinions of doctors, one which can be improved as it is used.
In virtually every area of human knowledge we recognize that software and databases are used to do jobs that no single person could possibly be able to do, be expected to do, to do these jobs better than, faster than, and at far less cost than any single person could do them. It's time to accept that this is also true of assisting us in understanding the meaning of the symptoms of our ill health, ill nutrition, pain and suffering.
There should be no objection by anyone to the idea that it is anyone's basic right to such knowledge, and that the Internet is the ideal method of providing this.
Could be a step in the right direction (Score:2, Insightful)
Hopefully the next generation of doctors will be so use to using internet search engines, that they won't feel threatened by a tool designed to help them diagnose a patient, not to replace doctors.
Re:Since we're using famous websites (Score:4, Insightful)