ArticleDiagnosis (Berlin, Germany)2025
Beyond thinking fast and slow: a Bayesian intuitionist model of clinical reasoning in real-world practice.
Article in Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Age matters in pediatric pain care: Bayesian meta-reanalysis of virtual reality trials.Pediatric research · 2026Pooled it
- Cognitive Tunneling in Obstetrics and Gynecology: A Critical Review of Implications for Clinical Practice and Mitigation Strategies.Diseases (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Re-Imagining Clinical Reasoning: An Updated Cognitive Framework for Real-World Medical Practice.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Review
- Musculoskeletal surgeons use mixed reasoning rather than pure Bayesian strategies in clinical practice.PloS one · 2026Article
- Pioneering diagnosis in Asia: advancing clinical reasoning expertise through the lens of 3M.Diagnosis (Berlin, Germany) · 2025Article
- Defining and Measuring the Goldilocks Zone in Healthcare: A Review of Metrics and Models.Health services insights · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Clinical reasoning is a quintessential aspect of medical training and practice, and is a topic that has been studied and written about extensively over the past few decades. However, the predominant conceptualisation of clinical reasoning has insofar been extrapolated from cognitive psychological theories that have been developed in other areas of human decision-making. Till date, the prevailing model of understanding clinical reasoning has remained as the dual process theory which views cognition as a dichotomous two-system construct, where intuitive thinking is fast, efficient, automatic but error-prone, and analytical thinking is slow, effortful, logical, deliberate and likely more accurate. Nonetheless, we find that the dual process model has significant flaws, not only in its fundamental construct validity, but also in its lack of practicality and applicability in naturistic clinical decision-making. Instead, we herein offer an alternative Bayesian-centric, intuitionist approach to clinical reasoning that we believe is more representative of real-world clinical decision-making, and suggest pedagogical and practice-based strategies to optimise and strengthen clinical thinking in this model to improve its accuracy in actual practice.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39648275What 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.