This is an important suggestion. Clinical decision making is often done under pressure of time, and requires weighing up not just the optimal management but also the consequences of getting it wrong. For something as simple as red, irritated eyes, the two likeliest causes – and infection and an allergic reaction – require treatments that will make the condition worse if you choose the wrong one.
Second, clinical decision making is sequential, with each step frequently determining what the next test should be, while statistical models are single-pass models requiring all information to be available at once.
My advice would be to sit in while a really good psychiatrist or psychotherapist conducts a diagnostic interview, to appreciate the incremental, branching structure of clinical decision making. About the most useful thing I learned in my career was how to conduct a formal psychiatric interview.
A failure to understand how decision making works in real life has left us with a mountain of logistic regression models that simply don’t meet the needs of our clinical colleagues.
I’m not saying that clinical decision making cannot be improved upon – I readily admit that it’s often bad, and spectacularly so in psychiatry (an area close to my heart). But we cannot help if we don’t understand what we are helping with.