We have recently developed an artificial intelligence (AI) framework to diagnose common pediatric diseases. This randomized controlled clinical trial aims to investigate the effects of expert arbitration on clinical outcomes in the situation where the AI-based diagnosis differs from the diagnosis made by pediatricians.

Based on the historical clinical data of more than 1 million pediatric outpatients in the Guangzhou Women and Children's Medical Center, an AI diagnostic framework has recently been developed for common pediatric diseases [Liang H et al. evaluation and accurate diagnosis of pediatric disease using artificial intelligence. Nat Med. 2019;25(3):433-8]. This AI framework utilizes predefined schema to extract informative clinical data from free text and reaches clinical diagnoses by hypothetico-deductive reasoning. In internal validation, the AI system showed accuracy rates ranging from 0.85 for gastrointestinal disease to 0.98 for neuropsychiatric disorders, suggesting that it might be a promising assisting diagnostic tool in clinical practice. However, there is a lack of evidence-based strategy on how to handle the scenarios where the AI-based diagnosis and the diagnosis made by pediatricians are discordant. It is legitimate to assume that diseases with discordant diagnoses present more similar clinical features; in this case it is necessary to introduce an extra arbitrator for differential and decisive diagnosis. Therefore, we conduct this randomized controlled trial to: 1) compare the accuracy of the two diagnostic modes in a real-world clinical setting where the AI-based diagnosis and the diagnosis made by pediatricians are discordant by introducing an expert arbitrator; and 2) look further into the change of clinical outcomes (hospital revisit and hospitalization in the next 3 months after initial visit; average total outpatient cost) due to introduction of the expert arbitrator. Please note that although the aforementioned AI framework was designed for diagnosis of a wide range of diseases, this clinical trial is limited to outpatients encountered in three specialty clinics, i.e. respirology, gastroenterology, and genito-urology. The reason for this selection is that the discordant diagnoses are assumed to be more common for these two specialties according to the internal validation result.

Inclusion Criteria:

1. Outpatients who visits the respirology clinics or the gastroenterology clinics during the recruitment period.
2. Written informed consent is provided by parents/guardians

Exclusion Criteria:

1. Patients with any conditions that require immediate diagnosis and treatment.