Diagnostic systems aren’t used because they aren’t useful. Doctors observe-investigate-record; diagnosing a condition from the last step isn’t helpful because in order to get there, a doc has to have already acted on a hunch.
> the systems in question don't improve that situation
I don't think that's true. Look at statistics or ask patients, doctors are very inefficient to detect cancer.
On contrary medical imaging technologies are very efficient. Even a simple phone camera & app can automatically detect things like carcinoma or melanoma, when most general practitioners are not able to recognize them for what they are.
Another statistical tip is that not all doctors are equals. Depending where you live in country side or big town you do not have the same odds of survival. In Europe simply crossing a border would mean that survival could vary by 20% for the same type of cancer.
Eight years ago I designed a simple low cost (~$100) tool to detect heart failure [0] by using resources from Physionet [1].
Physionet competition is motivated by the fact that 1/3 of doctors were shown to be unable to detect heart failure with stethoscope. Competitors show that automatic tools can detect it nearly 100% times.
This does not mean the end of general practitioners, they simply will use other methods, more scientific (no more hunch), and anyway more specialists will be needed to operate those smart tools.
This. They act well as warning systems in case you may have missed something, but they don't solve the issue very well of who to work up in the first place or how to do it.
