[DrScientist]

This is what effectively doctors do - educated guessing.

In my view, while statistical models would probably be an improvement ( assuming all confounding factors are measured ), the ultimate solution is not to get better at educated guessing, but to remove the guessing completely, with diagnostic tests that measure the relevant bio-medical markers.

[londons_explore]

Good tests < good tests + statistical modelling.

This becomes even more true when you consider there is risk to every test. Some tests have obvious risks (radiation risk from CT scans, chance of damage from spinal fluid tap). Other tests the risk is less obvious (sending you for a blood test and awaiting the results might not be a good idea if that delays treatment for some ailment already pretty certain). In the bigger picture, any test that costs money harms the patient slightly, since someone must pay for the test, and for many the money they spend on extra tests comes out of money they might otherwise spend on gym memberships, better food, or working fewer hours - it is well known that the poor have worse health than the rich.

[DrScientist]

Sure tests cost money - and today there is a funnel pathway - the educated guess is a funnel/filter where the next step which is often a biomedical test/investigation.

But if we are talking about being truly transformative - then a Star-trek tricorder is the ultimate goal, rather than a better version of twenty questions in my view.

So I'm not saying it's not useful, just that it's not the ultimate solution.

[itishappy]

Without a perfect framework for differential diagnosis, this is still educated guessing. In my opinion we're closer to the AI singularity than we are to removing guesswork from the medical field.

[tessierashpool]

this is true, but we're also much closer to Jupiter than we are to Alpha Centauri