Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers

User menu

  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in

Search

  • Advanced search
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals
  • RCGP
    • BJGP for RCGP members
    • BJGP Open
    • RCGP eLearning
    • InnovAIT Journal
    • Jobs and careers
  • Subscriptions
  • Alerts
  • Log in
  • Follow bjgp on Twitter
  • Visit bjgp on Facebook
  • Blog
  • Listen to BJGP podcast
  • Subscribe BJGP on YouTube
British Journal of General Practice
Intended for Healthcare Professionals

Advanced Search

  • HOME
  • ONLINE FIRST
  • CURRENT ISSUE
  • ALL ISSUES
  • AUTHORS & REVIEWERS
  • SUBSCRIBE
  • BJGP LIFE
  • MORE
    • About BJGP
    • Conference
    • Advertising
    • eLetters
    • Alerts
    • Video
    • Audio
    • Librarian information
    • Resilience
    • COVID-19 Clinical Solutions
Editorials

Artificial intelligence and diagnosis in general practice

Nick Summerton and Martin Cansdale
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (684): 324-325. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp19X704165
Nick Summerton
Yorkshire Medical Chambers, Welton, Brough, East Yorkshire.
Roles: GP
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Martin Cansdale
Your.MD Limited, Bloomsbury, London.
Roles: Principal Data Scientist
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

INTRODUCTION

Diagnosis in general practice is difficult. Within the populations that GPs care for, serious diseases and disorders are less prevalent and, generally, at an earlier stage in the development of symptoms than in other healthcare settings.1 However, the public, the media, and our specialist colleagues want primary care clinicians to become much better diagnosticians. GPs are now expected to spot individuals with cancer earlier while also avoiding excessive testing or inappropriate onward referrals.

Currently, there is growing interest in using artificial intelligence (AI) to supplement, enhance, or even replace GP diagnostic intelligence. Advocates of AI have suggested that such technologies could improve diagnostic accuracy (with fewer underdiagnoses and overdiagnoses) in addition to diagnostic efficiency. But others have argued that it will add yet another information burden during an already busy surgery. It might do very little to improve patient outcomes, GP stress levels, or healthcare finances.2

AI refers to computing techniques that resemble human cognitive functions, such as learning and problem solving. Rather than following pre-programmed instructions, AI approaches draw inferences from, or discover, patterns in data. Expert systems emulate human decision making by using an inference engine to apply rules to facts held in a knowledge base. Machine learning — including neural networks or deep learning — develops models to make decisions, or to classify examples. This is achieved by using a training algorithm — supplied with data of suitable quantity and quality — to adjust the weights within a model to optimise the goodness of fit between the input and the output.

All AI techniques depend on high-quality information on which to learn and classify clinical data in relation to outcomes. To date, most AI techniques have focused on radiology, as medical imaging data have been systematically stored and collected for some time and are now readily available to train AI diagnostic systems.3 Based on an approach known as supervised learning, the programmer trains the system by defining a set of diagnoses for a range of images labelled by human experts.

Although clinical information from general practice is more ill defined, AI natural language processing techniques now provide the tools to analyse more unstructured data from records or patients. The outputs are then in a form that is more amenable to further analysis by machine learning.

AI is a focused technology, and this is, on the face of it, at variance with the comprehensive and holistic nature of primary care medicine. Diagnostic intelligence in general practice is much more than generating a possible label or suggesting a course of action.1 The GP needs to understand the patient’s context in addition to picking up social and psychological cues with empathy, care, and compassion. Explicit knowledge about the predictive value of symptoms can be taught to a machine but tacit knowledge such as how to gain an individual’s confidence might not.

In this editorial we will consider some possible roles for AI to augment the current diagnostic approach within primary care settings.

THE PATIENT’S PRESENTATION

One of the challenges to improving health outcomes from conditions such as cancer, depression, and rheumatoid arthritis is to get the right individuals to the right place at the right time. Before a person presents to their GP, they will often have sought advice from friends, their family, or the local pharmacist. Most will have also checked the internet. But the problem with all these interactions is that the advice received is of variable quality and consistency.

Several AI-based symptom checkers have been developed with the aim of improving the accuracy and the reliability of any advice, guidance, or signposting. In a vignette-based audit of 23 symptom checkers available for use by the public, the appropriate triage advice was considered to have been provided in 57% of evaluations, rising to 80% for emergency cases.4

Unfortunately, the major problem with most symptom checkers is that they are risk averse, encouraging users to seek help from their GP for conditions when self-care would be perfectly reasonable and safe. Striking a sensible balance between missing a serious condition and overwhelming GP surgeries is tricky. As many symptoms presenting to GPs are self-limiting, one option to consider is the development of AI tools that enable certain symptoms to be monitored over time.5 This symptom-based information might also be supplemented by clinical data provided directly by individuals using, for example, self-testing or wearable biosensors.

Images from an individual’s mobile phone of a skin lesion can already be assessed by an AI system using deep learning to rule out skin cancers. This presents the opportunity to increase the numbers of individuals undergoing skin cancer screening and signpost the most appropriate ones to see their GP for further assessment.6

THE GP CONSULTATION

Clinical decision making is often partially dependent on a number of cognitive heuristics or ‘rules of thumb’ in order to aid recall or understand knowledge. Unfortunately, as a consequence, GPs may produce a distorted range of differential diagnoses through failing to consider the relative prevalences of conditions within a primary care setting. Data that contradict expectations also tend to be ignored or dismissed as unimportant, especially if obtained towards the end of the consultation.7

Within UK general practice the earlier diagnosis of cancer continues to remain a challenge, and this might reflect the inappropriate use of certain heuristics. According to Sheringham et al, GPs are not more likely to initiate cancer investigations for individuals with higher-risk symptoms and, also, do not investigate everyone with the same symptoms equally.8

AI could assist GPs in recognising and overcoming cognitive biases, but only if the system has been trained on the correct data, and from the appropriate population. An AI diagnostic tool developed using clinical information from the UK might not provide the correct clinical guidance to a primary care clinician in India. Moreover, the AI outputs need to support GP decision making where, for example, precise diagnostic labels are less important than deciding on an appropriate course of action.1

In enhancing a GP’s diagnostic abilities, it is also important to appreciate that AI systems do not get tired or irritable! Moreover, AI might have a key role in assessing and improving GP communication skills.9

More broadly, if we are really committed to improving the quality of primary care cancer diagnoses, then educating new GPs about cancer symptoms using retrospective studies of historical clinical data seems unlikely to have much impact on cancer prognoses. In order to significantly improve patient outcomes, we urgently need more and better information on the features that might indicate early-stage cancers within a primary care setting.

CONCLUSION

By its ability to analyse masses of data and to come up with new insights and associations, AI has the potential to furnish GPs with some fresh ideas and understandings. For example, it may highlight the potential importance of other non-traditional features in achieving an earlier cancer diagnosis, such as, measurable changes in a patient’s lifestyle, or health-seeking behaviour when they consult with a non-specific symptom such as fatigue.10

In addition, AI might also point GPs towards new diagnostic approaches, for example, the analysis of an individual’s social media data history to assist in the earlier recognition of depression.11

The clinical information required to distinguish between, for example, two courses of action in general practice is distinct from that required to make a precise clinical diagnosis in a specialist setting. In keeping with this, it is of some concern that the number of tests being ordered by GPs has risen over three-fold between 2000 and 2015.12 Such an increase will have adverse effects on patients in addition to healthcare finances. Therefore, when faced with some common symptoms — such as tiredness or fatigue — it might be that AI can be harnessed in order to support more rational approaches to testing within general practice.13

To conclude, AI cannot replace GP diagnostic intelligence, but could augment it. However, before any large-scale roll-out is considered, there is a requirement for AI systems to be subjected to careful evaluation.14 We need to ensure that the AI–GP combination enhances diagnostic decision making and health outcomes without simply producing anxious patients or inflicting a further burden on healthcare budgets.

Notes

Provenance

Freely submitted; externally peer reviewed.

Competing interests

Nick Summerton sits on the Clinical Advisory Group for Your.MD Ltd. Martin Cansdale is employed by Your.MD Ltd. Your.MD Ltd has developed an AI-based symptom checker.

  • © British Journal of General Practice 2019

REFERENCES

  1. 1.↵
    1. Summerton N
    (2011) Primary care diagnostics (Radcliffe Medical Press, Abingdon).
  2. 2.↵
    1. Academy of Medical Royal Colleges.
    (2019) Artificial intelligence in healthcare (AoMRC, London).
  3. 3.↵
    1. Tang A,
    2. Tam R,
    3. Cadrin-Chênevert A,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Canadian Association of Radiologists White Paper on artificial intelligence in radiology. Can Assoc Radiol J 69(2):120–135.
    OpenUrl
  4. 4.↵
    1. Semigran HL,
    2. Linder JA,
    3. Gidengil C,
    4. Mehrotra A
    (2015) Evaluation of symptom checkers for self diagnosis and triage: audit study. BMJ 351:h3480.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  5. 5.↵
    1. Kroenke K,
    2. Jackson JL
    (1998) Outcome in general medical patients presenting with common symptoms: a prospective study with a 2-week and a 3-month follow-up. Fam Pract 15(5):398–403.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. 6.↵
    1. Zakhem GA,
    2. Motosko CC,
    3. Ho RS
    (2018) How should artificial intelligence screen for skin cancer and deliver diagnostic predictions to patients? JAMA Dermatol 154(12):1383–1384.
    OpenUrl
  7. 7.↵
    1. Tversky A,
    2. Kahneman D
    (1974) Judgement under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185(4157):1124–1131.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. 8.↵
    1. Sheringham J,
    2. Sequeira R,
    3. Myles J,
    4. et al.
    (2017) Variations in GPs’ decisions to investigate suspected lung cancer: a factorial experiment using multimedia vignettes. BMJ Qual Saf 26(6):449–459.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  9. 9.↵
    1. Ryan P,
    2. Luz S,
    3. Albert P,
    4. et al.
    (2019) Using artificial intelligence to assess clinicians’ communication skills. BMJ 364:l161.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  10. 10.↵
    1. Gray DJP
    (1966) The role of the general practitioner in the early detection of malignant disease. Trans Hunterian Soc 25:135–179.
    OpenUrl
  11. 11.↵
    1. Eichstaedt JC,
    2. Smith RJ,
    3. Merchant RM,
    4. et al.
    (2018) Facebook language predicts depression in medical records. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 115(44):11203–11208.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. 12.↵
    1. [No authors listed].
    (2019) Temporal trends in use of tests in UK primary care, 2000–15: retrospective analysis of 250 million tests. BMJ 364:l444.
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  13. 13.↵
    1. Koch H,
    2. van Bokhoven MA,
    3. ter Riet G,
    4. et al.
    (2009) Br J Gen Pract, Ordering blood tests for patients with unexplained fatigue in general practice: what does it yield? Results of the VAMPIRE trial. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp09X420310.
  14. 14.↵
    1. Fraser H,
    2. Coiera E,
    3. Wong D
    (2018) Safety of patient-facing digital symptom checkers. Lancet 392(10161):2263–2264.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top
Previous ArticleNext Article

In this issue

British Journal of General Practice: 69 (684)
British Journal of General Practice
Vol. 69, Issue 684
July 2019
  • Table of Contents
  • Index by author
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Or,
sign in or create an account with your email address
Email Article

Thank you for recommending British Journal of General Practice.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person to whom you are recommending the page knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Artificial intelligence and diagnosis in general practice
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from British Journal of General Practice
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from British Journal of General Practice.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Citation Tools
Artificial intelligence and diagnosis in general practice
Nick Summerton, Martin Cansdale
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (684): 324-325. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X704165

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero

Share
Artificial intelligence and diagnosis in general practice
Nick Summerton, Martin Cansdale
British Journal of General Practice 2019; 69 (684): 324-325. DOI: 10.3399/bjgp19X704165
del.icio.us logo Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo CiteULike logo Facebook logo Google logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
  • Mendeley logo Mendeley

Jump to section

  • Top
  • Article
    • INTRODUCTION
    • THE PATIENT’S PRESENTATION
    • THE GP CONSULTATION
    • CONCLUSION
    • Notes
    • REFERENCES
  • Info
  • eLetters
  • PDF

More in this TOC Section

  • Socioeconomic deprivation and post-stroke care in the community
  • Advocating for patients through laboratory tests: what do GPs’ use of blood tests for suspected cancer tell us?
  • Diagnosis of prostate cancer in primary care: navigating updated clinical guidance
Show more Editorials

Related Articles

Cited By...

Intended for Healthcare Professionals

BJGP Life

BJGP Open

 

@BJGPjournal's Likes on Twitter

 
 

British Journal of General Practice

NAVIGATE

  • Home
  • Current Issue
  • All Issues
  • Online First
  • Authors & reviewers

RCGP

  • BJGP for RCGP members
  • BJGP Open
  • RCGP eLearning
  • InnovAiT Journal
  • Jobs and careers

MY ACCOUNT

  • RCGP members' login
  • Subscriber login
  • Activate subscription
  • Terms and conditions

NEWS AND UPDATES

  • About BJGP
  • Alerts
  • RSS feeds
  • Facebook
  • Twitter

AUTHORS & REVIEWERS

  • Submit an article
  • Writing for BJGP: research
  • Writing for BJGP: other sections
  • BJGP editorial process & policies
  • BJGP ethical guidelines
  • Peer review for BJGP

CUSTOMER SERVICES

  • Advertising
  • Contact subscription agent
  • Copyright
  • Librarian information

CONTRIBUTE

  • BJGP Life
  • eLetters
  • Feedback

CONTACT US

BJGP Journal Office
RCGP
30 Euston Square
London NW1 2FB
Tel: +44 (0)20 3188 7400
Email: journal@rcgp.org.uk

British Journal of General Practice is an editorially-independent publication of the Royal College of General Practitioners
© 2023 British Journal of General Practice

Print ISSN: 0960-1643
Online ISSN: 1478-5242