A differential should show
- Why each hypothesis is being considered.
- Findings that support and weaken it.
- How likely and how urgent it appears.
- Important missing or contradictory information.
- What would cause the ranking to change.
Diagnostic support
AI differential diagnosis should help a qualified clinician inspect plausible alternatives, urgency and uncertainty. It should never turn a generated list into an autonomous diagnosis.
Beyond list generation
Long lists can add noise. Decision support is more useful when it helps clinicians compare hypotheses, identify time-critical alternatives and decide what information would change the assessment.
Four clinical lenses
Order plausible explanations using the available context, while showing that the order is provisional and sensitive to missing data.
Keep serious, time-sensitive alternatives visible even when they are not the most likely, and state what makes them actionable.
Identify findings that may change urgency or destination of care. Red-flag lists are prompts for assessment, not guarantees that risk has been excluded.
Consider mimics, medication effects, psychosocial context and multiple simultaneous processes where clinically relevant.
Safe sequence
Stabilise and escalate when required. Do not delay action while entering data or waiting for an AI response.
Document the clinician’s problem representation and leading alternatives before reviewing model suggestions where practical.
Use the output to look for omissions and contradictions. Challenge unsupported items and watch for anchoring on the generated order.
Prioritise findings that could meaningfully change probability, urgency or management rather than testing every listed condition.
Update the ranking when symptoms evolve, results return or the response to management does not fit the working explanation.
Probability updates
A finding changes probability according to its diagnostic performance and the starting probability in the relevant setting.
Estimate a defensible pre-test probability using prevalence, setting, history, examination and the quality of available data.
Record the uncertainty around that estimate rather than presenting false precision.
Apply an appropriate likelihood ratio when one is available and applicable. Reconsider whether findings are independent before combining them.
Use the post-test probability calculator for educational support.
Boundaries
Small wording changes, missing findings and inaccurate documentation can materially change the output.
Performance may vary by presentation, population, language, setting and conditions not well represented in development data.
A model may invent relationships, sources or certainty. Plausible language must not bypass verification.
Generated rankings can anchor attention and make clinicians less likely to notice contradictory evidence.
Goals, access, examination nuance and longitudinal knowledge may not be captured in the submitted information.
Model, evidence and workflow changes can invalidate earlier evaluation and require renewed monitoring.
Related guidance
Clinical decision support
Explore Diagnify’s clinician-facing workflow, then review the evidence and safety information before use.