“An apple a day, keeps the doctor away”?

What happens when patients go to the consultation sessions with their doctors and say my Apple watch indicated that I have such a disease? Do these additional “indications” help or distract doctors in making their own examination? What if such “indications” are with or without “evidence”? And whether there is any difference between “junior” or “senior” doctors in reacting to these algorithmic inputs? In our study at KIN Center for Digital Innovation , with Arthur W. , Mohammad Hosein Rezazade Mehrizi and Dr. Ahmad S. Amin at Amsterdam University Medical Centers (Amsterdam UMC), we explored these questions in a quasi-experimental setting with 19 cardiologists and we observed that bringing algorithmic “indications” to consultation sessions can strongly change doctors’ diagnosis, and this all highly depends on the presence and quality of the “evidence” that is provided next to the “indication”. Read our paper here and be mindful of the specific setting of our study. Curious to know if you have observed similar or different patterns in your own practice/research?