This paper describes a series of 10,500 attempts at »pattern-recognition« by two groups of humans and a computer based system. There was little difference between the performances of 11 clinicians and 11 other persons of comparable intellectual capability. Both groups’ performances were related to the pattern-size, the accuracy diminishing rapidly as the patterns grew larger. By contrast the computer system increased its accuracy as the patterns increased in size.It is suggested (a) that clinicians are very little better than others at pattem-recognition, (b) that the clinician is incapable of analysing on a probabilistic basis the data he collects during a traditional clinical interview and examination and (c) that the study emphasises once again a major difference between human and computer performance. The implications as - regards human- and computer-aided diagnosis are discussed.
Computer-aided Diagnosis for Internal Hemorrhoids by Measuring the Congestive Extent in Endoscopic Images
