Jeff Green wrote:
>
> Ian Eiloart wrote
>
> >Computers are great at recalling information *reliably* - much better than
> >humans are. However, humans are much better at deciding what information
> >is relevant.
>
> Even in the 60's Tim de Dombal's program on a BBC was giving more accurate
'sfunny, I'm sure I remember playing on a prototype of the first BBC
computer in 1980 (I was in the sixth form).
> diagnoses of appendicitis than the doctors at the LGI.
> 30 years on I have little doubt that, after triage, computers could be
> programmed to do a more accurate job of diagnosis and make better treatment
> decisions if that's what anyone actually wanted them to do.
I take the point, though. If you can codify the relevant diagnostic
criteria, and get an adequate sample of case histories, then a computer
can be a useful diagnostic tool. But this is actually just a case of
recalling information reliably - although the interface for generating the
recall has some rules in it that relate symptoms to causes.
As for treatment decisions, I imagine that should be a subject of
negotiation between patient and doctor. Not so easy for a computer,
although it could be useful in providing information to the patient on
likely outcomes and risks.
>
> Regards
>
> Jeff Green
>
> Community Locum and Consultant Pharmacist
>
> [log in to unmask]
--
cheers, Ian Eiloart
<http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/iane>
<http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/iane/coops>
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|