Choice problems occur on a daily basis.For example, with regard to treatments for illnesses, rare or unknown illnesses may lack information on which of the two treatments to choose.At that time, it is possible to make a judgment based on statistical probability, but it is unclear which treatment method has the highest success rate in the end.

　This time, assuming that an unknown disease occurs and there are two treatments of unknown efficacy, the population who chooses the treatment according to the expected cure rate based on statistics and the group who are more "optimistic" Compared with a group of "people".In addition, we compared it with the group of "people who think pessimistically", and also investigated the group consisting of "various people" based on the assumption that some people are optimistic and some are pessimistic. The cure rate for the entire population was calculated by computer.

　As a result, when the cure rates of the two treatments were fairly high, the cure rate of the entire population was high in the case of the optimistic population.Also, in the case of a mixed group of optimistic and pessimistic people, some of the characteristics found in the optimistic homogeneous group were observed.The results of this study show that when there is insufficient information on choices, it is better for the group to take uneven choice behaviors, that is, to have diversity in decisions, than to take uniform choice behaviors. It suggests that there may be benefits.

　One of the researchers said, "There is a lot of research to find out the only best option in the medical field. We have thrown a stone in the flow, the significance of the diversity of decisions, the existence of optimistic people, devilish people. I understand the significance. "

Paper information:[Peer J] In silico study of medical decision-making for rare diseases: heterogeneity of decision-makers in a population improves overall benefit