Experienced clinicians begin the process of making a diagnosis upon first laying eyes on a patient, and probability is one of the main tools they use in this process. A glimpse “behind the scenes” from the point of view of a diagnosing physician might help to explain an otherwise mysterious process.
The diagnostic process can begin even before laying eyes on the patient. As an exercise (and to prove a point) I ask medical students who are with me in the office to diagnose the patient we haven’t seen yet who is still in the waiting room. Of course, they look at me like I’m crazy. But I tell them that we already know a lot about the patient and can make some educated guesses. For example, we might already know that the patient is a 34-year-old woman referred by a family doctor because of headaches.
So what have other women in their thirties referred to me for headaches ended up having as their diagnosis? In my neurology practice, as well as in those of most other headache specialists, about a third (33%) have migraine, another third have medication-overuse headaches (in which the treatment has become the problem instead of its solution), and the remaining third fall into an “everything else” category that includes tension-type headaches, arthritis of the neck or jaw-joints, sinus disease, tumors, etc. So before seeing the patient I’m already able to identify the two most likely diagnoses and assign an initial probability for each.
These starting-point likelihoods are called “anchor” probabilities. During the subsequent history, examination and supplemental testing (if necessary) the anchor probabilities will undergo a series of upward and downward adjustments according to what the patient has to say and what does or does not turn up on her physical examination and testing. The physician individualizes the questions asked and items examined so that the outcome of each query forces one diagnosis to be more likely and another to be less likely. Thus, diagnosis is a dynamic and sequential process.
We invite the woman into the examining room and listen to her story. In the headache example given, one key pie
ce of data is how many days per month she takes an as-needed medication – for example, aspirin, acetaminophen or a prescription drug. If she takes as-needed medicine more days than not and has been doing so for a matter of months, then the initial 33% anchor probability of medication-overuse headaches gets adjusted upward and the initial anchor probability of uncomplicated migraine moves downward. This, of course, is just a single distinguishing feature, and cannot be relied upon to tell the whole story. The physician gathers many such data points to refine the diagnosis.
The physical examination provides another source of facts to distinguish among still-viable possibilities. If my patient has migraine or medication-overuse headaches, she might have tender muscles in her scalp and neck but should not have a blind spot in her visual fields, slurring of her speech or clumsiness on just one side of her body. These findings, if present, would cause the probabilities of migraine and medication overuse headaches to be revised downward. By contrast, the probability of a brain disease – like a tumor, for example – that started with a low anchor probability would get revised upwards.
If a blood test or a scan is ordered, it is again with the idea that the test has been individualized to discriminate between competing diagnoses and re-adjust their relative probabilities.
There is an important principal in medical diagnosis called Bayes’ theorem. In a nutshell, Bayes’ theorem states that the probability of a diagnosis after a new fact is added depends on what its probability was before the new fact was added. Anot
her way of saying this is that the same “yes” answer on history-gathering, reflex result on physical exam or dark spot on an MRI scan has different implications in different people. The meaning of each depends on its context. Yet another implication of Bayes’ theorem is that one can’t skip past the history and examination by ordering a test in isolation and expect it to make an accurate diagnosis. A test is an answer to a question. If there was no question, how could the test be an answer?
Let’s say that at a particular point in time we have completed the diagnostic process for a patient. Then what? By the end of the diagnostic process the doctor might have a diagnosis that is nearly 100% likely, but in other cases, the working diagnosis (number one choice) might still be just 70% or 80% probable, with a number two choice less likely, but still on the radar screen. It might make some patients uncomfortable to realize that the diagnostic process does not lead to 100% certainty in every case, but a doctor wouldn’t be doing a patient any favors by pushing the analysis past the outcome that the available information leads to.
When a diagnosis is not 100% likely at the time of initial evaluation, the patient’s course of symptoms over time provides yet another form of data that can lead to revision of diagnostic probabilities. Fortunately, in cases involving uncertainty, even just narrowing down the list of diagnoses to a small number of concrete alternatives allows the doctor and patient to discuss reasonable options and make sensible choices.
(C) 2005 by Gary Cordingley
Further reading from around the web:
Related searches: Medical, Diagnosis, Headache, Migraine, Medication Overuse, Bayes, Probability, Likelihood, Bayesian, Diagnose, Physician, Medicine, Patient, United States, Association of American Medical Colleges, Electronic medical record, Institute of Medicine, Medical practice, Physician supply, William Osler,
Image credits:
English: A Fagan nomogram (or Fagan’s nomogram) for relations between Pre- and post-test probabilities and likelihood ratio. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
English: A physician from the United States Army administers a medical examination on a World War I soldier. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
The Edwin Smith papyrus, the world’s oldest surviving surgical document. Written in hieratic script in ancient Egypt around 1600 B.C., the text describes anatomical observations and the examination, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis of 48 types of medical problems in exquisite detail. Plate 6 and 7 of the papyrus, pictured here, discuss facial trauma. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Health & Vitality: the Way to Good Health
Start living a healthy life now: Here is your 7-day plan ==> Having sworn to yourself that you’ll go to the gym in the morning, how many times have you changed your mind after you woke up and did not feel like working out? We all have days when we lose our motivation to get […]
Science-based Suggestions for self-confidence
A recent study shows your perception of your own image has a profound effect on how you present yourself to the rest of the world. Those findings could be empowering since even small changes to your self-care routine can significantly boost your self-confidence. The study by researchers at the Stanford Graduate School of Business found […]
Top 4 Nutrition Predictions in the New Year
Several food and nutrition trends were in the spotlight this year, including the continued rise of plant-based diets, non-dairy ice creams and superfoods that are blasts from the past — legumes, apples and cabbage. It can be easy to experience nutrition whiplash in the New Year, but don’t be a victim. Get a jump-start on […]
5 ways to feel good while getting fit
(BPT) – Setting intentions is a powerful thing. Then when you have that shiny new gym membership in hand, you feel like nothing stands between you and your goals to get in shape once and for all. Trouble is, lack of motivation, unpreparedness and busy schedules have a way of interfering with our plans. If […]
