Shutterstock

A startup has launched a web tool that uses the collective knowledge of the public to solve rare medical mysteries, turning medicine into a "team sport".

US-based CrowdMed, launched at the TedMed conference in Washington DC, is the brainchild of Jared Heyman, formerly of online market research firm Infosurv. Drawing on methods used to pool knowledge at his previous role, Heyman says the guiding principle of CrowdMed is to rely on the "wisdom of crowds", using clever analytics to digest that wisdom and sift out key ingredients. "Instead of relying on individual physicians, CrowdMed harnesses the collective intelligence of hundreds of 'medical detectives' (MDs) to produce astonishingly accurate diagnostic suggestions in just hours," states the site. And why should we trust the divided knowledge of hundreds of strangers over our own GP? According to CrowdMed, because "no single individual, even a doctor, can keep track of thousands of unique medical disorders, with hundreds of new ones discovered each year".


Using analytics for diagnosis is not new. IBM's Watson supercomputer has been shown to diagnose cancer more accurately than a human doctor, for instance. However trusting an unlicensed public with your health scare is another matter entirely. According to the results of a CrowdMed test run done in beta the formula works though, with 20 mystery illnesses accurately identified in 700 participants' top three diagnosis choices. The first patient was the founder's own sister, Carly. She spent three years hunting down a diagnosis for her mystery illness, and only after the debts had mounted and 16 doctors had failed to find a solution, was she finally diagnosed with what turned out to be an incredibly rare disorder. CrowdMed, the fruits of four years' labour, came to the same diagnosis within days. "Many physicians are hyper-specialised these days and have a hard time seeing things outside of their speciality," Heyman told

VentureBeat. "This is a problem with the medical system, which meant my sister couldn't get an accurate diagnosis. I thought there has to be an alternative between Google searches and WebMD and bouncing from doctor to doctor."

Read next Audi e-tron Sportback 55 quattro S Line review: a flashy EV light show Audi e-tron Sportback 55 quattro S Line review: a flashy EV light show

He found the solution in what is essentially a betting and probability-driven system. Those visiting the site can either submit a case -- listing their symptoms, medical history, family medical history and other related factors -- or solve a case. The "medical detectives" can post diagnoses they think are possible after reading an individual's illness profile. The MDs are also provided with a set of points that they can give to the different diagnoses proffered by others on the site -- they are betting on the probable outcome. As such, each diagnosis has a value, which is then used by an algorithm to predict the probability of it being correct.

Individuals submitting a query receive the top three diagnoses according to the points and probability system. Anyone who submits the correct diagnosis gets additional points and even cash prizes.


These power players then have more voting power and will rise to the top of a virtual leaderboard that shows who is a trusted MD.

The idea is that those doing a good job have an incentive to return and do more good work. Those seeking a diagnosis must pay $199 (£130) -- though this is an introductory price -- and a $20 (£13) deposit which will either be returned if no accurate diagnosis is returned or used to incentivise MDs.

It makes sense that a system like this has been primarily launched in the US (while in beta answers from across the globe confused the system, with diseases not contractible in the US being flagged up, so it is restricted to North American participants for now with plans to expand post-launch). Considering medical mysteries can cost members of the public hundreds of thousands of dollars in the US, with no promise of success, $199 seems reasonable when you're betting on the knowledge of hundreds of people rather than a handful.

Read next How to download iOS 14 and try out its best new features How to download iOS 14 and try out its best new features

And CrowdMed is not the only one to bet on it. The company has received $1.1 million (£720,000) in funding from investors including New Enterprise Associates, Andresssen Horowitz, Greylock Partners, Y Combinator and SV Angel. It also has the expertise of Second Life founder Philip Rosedale and vice president of WebMD Clare Martorana on board.

The tool is squarely directed at those suffering from disorders clinically deemed rare according to list of 7,000 diseases recognised in the US and Europe, so it's not for everyday diagnosis. There is a danger, of course, that CrowdMed will attract the many people already Googling lists of symptoms in order to horrify themselves with stories of bizarre and terminal illnesses.

However, the money-back guarantee should help protect from this.


The system also relies heavily on a chunk of information delivered to the site being relevant and worthy. For now, this seems a safe bet, considering the 700 people that make up its community of MDs stemmed partly from partnerships with groups like Stanford's medical school. So perhaps its "wisdom of crowds" is in fact the wisdom of fully-licensed professionals from a multitude of scientific disciplines. CrowdMed also has plans to partner with a medical journal. But regardless of whether the system is gathering data from laymen or experts, the central idea remains -- rather than going to an individual with their own bias and specific training, widening the pool dramatically will provide insights to all manner of rare disorders and obliterate bias once all the data is calculated.

Heyman appears to be in good company with the venture, with one of the developers behind Watson, Claudia Perlich, telling the

New Scientist: "If Watson could get hold of what people submit to CrowdMed, I would love it. I absolutely agree with the premise that the big problem of the medical system is that we don't have sufficient information sharing."