In my experience doctors are horrendous at statistics and have no idea how often they should be seeing rare conditions. The “think horses not zebras” mentality that’s drummed into them has blinded them to the herds of zebras galavanting around them.
Since the process is so mechanical and so stats-driven, I think statistical computer models or even AI would do a much better job of it than your average doctor.
But due to the medical field being slow to utilize new methods, we don't see any of that yet, and the end result is far more people get false diagnoses than would otherwise. We can accept a human making a poor judgement sometimes, but we do not accept a machine doing the same, even if it's right more of the time.
More funding could help, but it’s just a hard problem.
>... Eight independent evaluators with special expertise in the management of meningitis compared MYCIN's choice of antimicrobials with the choices of nine human prescribers for ten test cases of meningitis. MYCIN received an acceptability rating of 65% by the evaluators; the corresponding ratings for acceptability of the regimen prescribed by the five faculty specialists ranged from 42.5% to 62.5%. The system never failed to cover a treatable pathogen while demonstrating efficiency in minimizing the number of antimicrobials prescribed.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/36660...
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3666074
https://aimi.stanford.edu/events/bridging-ais-proof-concept-...
I would suggest that a lot of medical questions are now answered by Dr. Google which implicitly does a lot of behavioral modeling / statistics in their machine learning and is already very successful.