[hwillis]

> I do feel I actually biased the first doctors opinion with my "research."

It may feel easy to say doctors should just consider all the options. But telling them an option is worse than just biasing their thinking; they are going to interpret that as information about your symptoms.

If you feel pain in your abdomen but are only talking about your appendix, they are rightfully going to think the pain is in the region of your appendix. They are not going to treat you like you have kidney pain. How could they? If they have to treat all of your descriptions as all the things that you could be relating them to, then that information is practically useless.

[ljm]

It sounds strange to me that you would use GPT to start consulting to your doc, as if you suddenly know better than them. You don't want to be doing their job for them.

If I used GPT for my medical issue last year and everybody took my word for it, I would be dead.

[kevin_thibedeau]

I've related self-dianoses of minor issues to a doctor, immediately followed up with a proviso that I don't put a lot of credence into non-professional opinions. The doctor was supportive that patient directed investigations had value. There is a threshold where an informed patient can be useful for treatment.

[QuantumGood]

Neither "the worst case would be" nor "everything is a sliding scale" are good single hueristics. There are rarely There are rarely good single hueristics, but implying them tends to color discussions strongly.

[thfuran]

Any competent doctor is aware that patients are likely to misdescribe things. If you walk in and say your appendix hurts, they absolutely should try to clarify that rather than just assuming you have appendicitis.