Cited by 253Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationTechnology and Human Factors in Education and HealthClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills

Lost in thought—the limits of the human mind and the future of medicine

Open access
Obermeyer, Ziad, Lee, Thomas H.·2017·New England Journal of Medicine

Abstract

Interview with Dr. Ziad Obermeyer on how collaboration between doctors and computers will help improve medical care. (11:26)Download The complexity of medicine now exceeds the capacity of the human mind. Computers are the solution, but using them to manage this complexity will require fundamental changes in the way we think about thinking, and in the structure of medical education and research.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1056/nejmp1705348

Cites

4 of 4 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Humans are incapable of the level of exposure or retention required by the growing medical information, and the magnitude has created substantial levels of stress-induced mental illness among learners.

    “Humans are not only incapable of this level of exposure or retention, but the magnitude has also created substantial levels of stress-induced mental illness among learners (57).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [1]Institute of Medicine Improving diagnosis in health care Washington, DC National Academies Press 2015 26803862

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Obermeyer, Z., & Lee, T. H.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Venue
New England Journal of Medicine
Published
2017-09-28
Volume
377
Issue
13
Pages
1209-1211
ISSN
  • 0028-4793 (ISSN-L)
  • 1533-4406
OpenAlex
W2758348074
Cited by
252
References
4
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 25 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 1
FWCI
16.08
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • New England Journal of Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (DP5OD012161)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Health Informatics › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Technology and Human Factors in Education and Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Keywords
artificial intelligence in healthcare, human-computer collaboration, limits of human cognition, clinical complexity, medical education, medical research, future of medicine, clinical decision support
MeSH terms
Machine Learning, Algorithms, Artificial Intelligence, Decision Making, Forecasting, Humans, Medicine, Thinking, Datasets as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review