Disease Labeling via Machine Learning is NOT quite the same as Medical Diagnosis
Moshe BenBassat

TL;DR
This paper argues that machine learning for disease labeling is insufficient for complete medical diagnosis, advocating for integrating anatomical and physiological knowledge with data-driven models to improve diagnostic accuracy.
Contribution
The paper introduces a Double Deep Learning approach and promotes a Medical Wikipedia initiative to combine data with medical knowledge for comprehensive AI diagnosis.
Findings
Data-centric models achieve expert-level disease labeling performance.
Knowledge integration improves diagnostic completeness.
Proposes a new AI framework combining data and medical knowledge.
Abstract
A key step in medical diagnosis is giving the patient a universally recognized label (e.g. Appendicitis) which essentially assigns the patient to a class(es) of patients with similar body failures. However, two patients having the same disease label(s) with high probability may still have differences in their feature manifestation patterns implying differences in the required treatments. Additionally, in many cases, the labels of the primary diagnoses leave some findings unexplained. Medical diagnosis is only partially about probability calculations for label X or Y. Diagnosis is not complete until the patient overall situation is clinically understood to the level that enables the best therapeutic decisions. Most machine learning models are data centric models, and evidence so far suggest they can reach expert level performance in the disease labeling phase. Nonetheless, like any other…
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education · Biomedical and Engineering Education
