[macNchz]

> Diagnosing a patient is in many ways an expert system problem which computers are excellent at.

I'm admittedly not a doctor, but this doesn't really match my understanding at all–after my dad got sick a couple of years ago I developed a bit of a fascination with reading about the practice of medicine, which has largely changed my view from an engineer's perspective like this to one with much more nuance.

Diagnoses in general are not nearly as cut and dry as people would like to believe, and getting to them is not often as simple as being a function of X symptom and Y test result. Patients are often vague or simply not equipped to provide a perfect history, tests have ranges and associated error, as well as risks of their own, treatments have risks themselves that may interplay with myriad other life factors. In many situations there may not be a definitive diagnosis to be had at all.

[soco]

I fully agree, it's a jungle out there with contradicting or outdated studies and and and. Humans aren't that perfect either though. Personal knowledge can get outdated too and not all keep themselves up to speed. A less that ideal test result can trigger a different test or can get dismissed as "not so bad". Correlations can go unnoticed. An annoying personality might get invited less often for checks. So really, there are some aspects where AI can increase the quality of the medical act. Indeed we are far from replacing it so I won't even bother thinking about it right now, I mean me as a patient. But extra help? Please bring more.