IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v44y2024i5p481-496.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Feedback Loop Failure Modes in Medical Diagnosis: How Biases Can Emerge and Be Reinforced

Author

Listed:
  • Rachael C. Aikens

    (Biomedical Informatics Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
    Mathematica, Princeton, NJ, USA)

  • Jonathan H. Chen

    (Stanford Center for Biomedical Informatics Research, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA
    Division of Hospital Medicine, Stanford School of Medicine, Stanford, CA, USA)

  • Michael Baiocchi

    (Biomedical Informatics Program, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
    Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA)

  • Julia F. Simard

    (Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA)

Abstract

Background Medical diagnosis in practice connects to research through continuous feedback loops: Studies of diagnosed cases shape our understanding of disease, which shapes future diagnostic practice. Without accounting for an imperfect and complex diagnostic process in which some cases are more likely to be diagnosed correctly (or diagnosed at all), the feedback loop can inadvertently exacerbate future diagnostic errors and biases. Framework A feedback loop failure occurs if misleading evidence about disease etiology encourages systematic errors that self-perpetuate, compromising future diagnoses and patient care. This article defines scenarios for feedback loop failure in medical diagnosis. Design Through simulated cases, we characterize how disease incidence, presentation, and risk factors can be misunderstood when observational data are summarized naive to biases arising from diagnostic error. A fourth simulation extends to a progressive disease. Results When severe cases of a disease are diagnosed more readily, less severe cases go undiagnosed, increasingly leading to underestimation of the prevalence and heterogeneity of the disease presentation. Observed differences in incidence and symptoms between demographic groups may be driven by differences in risk, presentation, the diagnostic process itself, or a combination of these. We suggested how perceptions about risk factors and representativeness may drive the likelihood of diagnosis. Differing diagnosis rates between patient groups can feed back to increasingly greater diagnostic errors and disparities in the timing of diagnosis and treatment. Conclusions A feedback loop between past data and future medical practice may seem obviously beneficial. However, under plausible scenarios, poorly implemented feedback loops can degrade care. Direct summaries from observational data based on diagnosed individuals may be misleading, especially concerning those symptoms and risk factors that influence the diagnostic process itself. Highlights Current evidence about a disease can (and should) influence the diagnostic process. A feedback loop failure may occur if biased “evidence†encourages diagnostic errors, leading to future errors in the evidence base. When diagnostic accuracy varies for mild versus severe cases or between demographic groups, incorrect conclusions about disease prevalence and presentation will result without specifically accounting for such variability. Use of demographic characteristics in the diagnostic process should be done with careful justification, in particular avoiding potential cognitive biases and overcorrection.

Suggested Citation

  • Rachael C. Aikens & Jonathan H. Chen & Michael Baiocchi & Julia F. Simard, 2024. "Feedback Loop Failure Modes in Medical Diagnosis: How Biases Can Emerge and Be Reinforced," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(5), pages 481-496, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:5:p:481-496
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X241248612
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X241248612
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X241248612?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:44:y:2024:i:5:p:481-496. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.