Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38090176›Full record

ReviewFrontiers in psychology2023

Inference to the best action and its basis in clinical expertise.

Mark Fedyk, Jessica Draughon Moret, Nicolas T Sawyer

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Mark FedykDivision of General Internal Medicine and Bioethics, Department of Internal Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Davis, CA, United States.
Jessica Draughon MoretBetty Irene Moore School of Nursing, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States.
Nicolas T SawyerDepartment of Emergency Medicine, School of Medicine, University of California, Davis, Sacramento, CA, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Can contemporary cognitive science explain clinical expertise? We argue that the answer could be "no." In support of this, we provide an analysis of two of the most essential expressions of clinical expertise in nursing and medicine, the ability to run a code blue and the ability to diagnose congestive heart failure. We show how it makes sense to treat both as examples of what we call inference to the best action, and we then argue that two of the standard explanatory paradigms of cognitive science - the Humean and Bayesian paradigms - are unable to provide a plausible analysis of inference to the best action.

Indexed as

clinical expertiseclinical modelsinference to the best explanationmedical expertisenursing sciencephilosophy of practicescientific models

Identifiers

PMID38090176
PMCPMC10711267

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.