ArticleScientific reports2024
Dichotomous horizontal representation of acute deterioration risk on illnesses.
Article in Scientific reports, 2024. 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.
- Numerically induced attentional biases in horizontal, vertical, and two-dimensional shapes.Scientific reports · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The possibility that risks interact with spatial information (such as the SNARC effect) has been explored but studies did not demonstrate a consistent left-to-right representation of risks. This is probably due to the perception of risk being different in each individual experience. The present study aimed to clarify the spatial characteristics of acute deterioration risks perceived from illnesses. Registered nurses and general students participated in the present experiment. They were instructed to judge, by pressing one of the left/right response buttons, whether the risk of a given target (illness name) presented on a computer screen was higher or lower compared to that of a standard stimulus. Reaction times to the target were measured. No spatial-risk association was observed in the comprehensive analysis, but further inspection revealed that approximately half of the participants have a left-to-right representation and the other half have a right-to-left representation. Moreover, participants' responses appeared to be faster when the target was representationally farther away from the standard stimulus (i.e., distance effect). These findings therefore suggest a spatially aligned magnitude representation of acute deterioration risk (i.e., mental risk line) but this horizontal risk orientation is likely to be dichotomous depending on the individuals and/or given situations.
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.