[dzink]

The algorithm is flawed. You are prioritizing a number of physicians from corporatized hospital “foundations”. In reality, those often push out private practice physicians with high expertise and hire cheaper newly trained doctors. To raise trust you need to make your rankings a lot more transparent - why be is each doctor ranked so highly? Is it because they have better statistical outcomes (those often don’t take on the hard cases, doctors who save the riskiest patients have worse mortality because they try more)? Is it because they are more published? (A surgeon can have as many papers as you want, but if they don’t do at least 15 whipples per year, they likely deadly for whipple patients (you need to have whipple surgery on your list too). Many medical metrics are counterintuitive. The most important ones are how many of these types of procedures does the Doctor treat per year. And what do other doctors who see that person’s outcomes think of their work. If you want to know which surgeon is good, ask the other surgeons that operate with them.

[kletinic]

Agree with most of what you said, except the first sentence. You sound like a physician (and I'm one too, and a data scientist). We take into account all those factors, including relevant procedures/regimens, research activities, quality measures etc. in an extremely granular, disease-specific manner. We don't survey physicians, because that is easily manipulated and it's subjective. Instead, we model nationwide referral network to discover authorities. Thanks for feedback.