As far as I'm aware, computers are better at diagnosing a very small and very specific subset of diagnoses. If I'm wrong about this and there's a computer out t

As far as I'm aware, computers are better at diagnosing a very small and very specific subset of diagnoses. If I'm wrong about this and there's a computer out there who can diagnose patients with better or equal accuracy than the average physician, please link me to the study proving so immediately, because I desperately want this in my life, and so do ninety percent of my colleagues. (There's a stubborn subset who wouldn't trust a computer if Asclepius himself descended from the heaven to sing its praises. The rest of us have ten times more work than time and would gladly welcome the help.) As it is, we can't even seem to find a program that can analyse an ECG better than an overtired and exhausted resident at 4 am, which is really quite a low bar to cross.