ArticleScientific reports2025
The combined effect of patient classification systems and availability of resources can bias the judgments of treatment effectiveness.
Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Doctors vs. Algorithms: Physicians, too, struggle to learn from evidence that contradicts AI suggestions.PLOS digital health · 2026Article
- Predicting continuous outcomes: Some new tests of associative approaches to contingency learning.PLoS computational biology · 2026Article
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
Abstract
Patient classification systems (PCS) support clinical decision-making but may rely on incorrect, outdated, or insufficient data. Doctors can sometimes override errors using their experience. However, certain factors such as scarcity of resources could lead to reliance on incorrect PCS recommendations, with consequences for patients. We conducted two experiments where participants interacted with a PCS that incorrectly classified fictitious patients as more or less sensitive to a treatment. Participants had the opportunity to administer the treatment on a series of patients, and use the feedback to learn that the PCS was wrong and all patients were equally sensitive. This was tested in contexts of abundant and scarce resources. Additionally, the treatment was effective in Experiment 1, but ineffective in Experiment 2. Results indicate that people generally trust the PCS recommendation, to some extent neglecting the information they collect during the task. This can lead to uneven resource allocation, especially in scarcity conditions, and incorrect perceptions of effectiveness, which in Experiment 2 implies believing that an ineffective treatment works. We preregistered the experiments, and all data and materials are public.
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.