ArticleMedEdPublish (2016)2020
A cognitive bias in diagnostic reasoning and its remediation by the "2-Dimensional Approach".
Article in MedEdPublish (2016), 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Medical reasoning in LLMs: an in-depth analysis of DeepSeek R1.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This article was migrated. The article was marked as recommended. Background Misdiagnoses are associated with various cognitive biases, which are difficult to reduce even if physicians think about clinical cases deliberately. We propose a new "2-Dimensional Approach" that combines two perspectives in diagnostic reasoning: organs (brain, heart, lung, intestine/liver, kidney) and systems (metabolic, endocrine, blood/tumor, infection, immune, circulatory, nervous systems). Systems involve throughout the whole body and can be pathogenesis of diseases. As a result of diseases, organs show abnormal vital signs and symptoms. We investigated: (1) whether each individual resident has a bias for either organs or systems when they diagnose clinical cases, and (2) whether the 2D Approach can reduce such a bias. Methods We randomly assigned PGY1 residents (n=105) to either the 2D Approach group (n=45) or a control group (n=60). After attending either a lecture on the 2D Approach or a non-related lecture, residents were asked to diagnose two clinical cases. We divided each diagnosis into one of the two categories, either "organs" or "systems". We investigated whether each resident would diagnose the two cases into the same category, either organs or systems (i.e., a bias for either organs or systems). Results The participants in the control group tended to diagnose the two cases into the same category, either organs or systems (OR: 5.63, 95% CI: 1.62-21.7, p=0.0030, Fisher's exact test). In the 2D Approach group, the category of diagnoses for the two cases were not related to each other (OR: 2.14, 95% CI: 0.50-9.81, p=0.33). Conclusion There is a bias for either organs or systems when residents diagnose clinical cases, suggesting that organs and systems are different perspectives in diagnostic reasoning. By combining these 2 different perspectives in a 2-dimensional matrix, the 2D Approach reduces this bias.
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.