ArticleiScience2021
Pooling decisions decreases variation in response bias and accuracy.
Article in iScience, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Deep learning-based automated scanline localization in suprahyoid muscle ultrasound for quantitative dysphagia assessment.Medical & biological engineering & computing · 2026Article
- Subjective Confidence as a Monitor of the Replicability of the Response.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2025Article
- Enhancing skin lesion classification: a CNN approach with human baseline comparison.PeerJ. Computer science · 2025Article
- Leaderless consensus decision-making determines cooperative transport direction in weaver ants.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2024Article
- Quorum sensing as a mechanism to harness the wisdom of the crowds.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Compromising improves forecasting.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- How experts' own inconsistency relates to their confidence and between-expert disagreement.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Decision makers in contexts as diverse as medical, judicial, and political decision making are known to differ substantially in response bias and accuracy, and these differences are a major factor undermining the reliability and fairness of the respective decision systems. Using theoretical modeling and empirical testing across five domains, we show that collective systems based on pooling decisions robustly overcome this important but as of now unresolved problem of experts' heterogeneity. In breast and skin cancer diagnostics and fingerprint analysis, we find that pooling the decisions of five experts reduces the variation in sensitivity among decision makers by 52%, 54%, and 41%, respectively. Similar reductions are achieved for specificity and response bias, and in other domains. Thus, although outcomes in individual decision systems are highly variable and at the mercy of individual decision makers, collective systems based on pooling decrease this variation, thereby promoting reliability, fairness, and possibly even trust.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.