Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40335554›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

The combined effect of patient classification systems and availability of resources can bias the judgments of treatment effectiveness.

Aranzazu Vinas, Fernando Blanco, Helena Matute

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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.

Aranzazu VinasDepartment of Psychology, Deusto University, Bilbao, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0454-0912
Fernando BlancoDepartment of Social Psychology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1283-8313
Helena MatuteDepartment of Psychology, Deusto University, Bilbao, Spain. matute@deusto.es.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7221-1366

Funding

Agencia Estatal de Investigación Grant PID2021-126320NB-I00Eusko Jaurlaritza IT1696-22MICIU, Spain FPU20/01009
6 · The paper itself

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Patient classification systems (PCS) support clinical decision-making but may rely on incorrect, outdated, or insufficient data.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

Clinical Decision-MakingJudgmentAdultFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedTreatment OutcomeCausal illusionCausal judgmentsCognitive biasDecision-makingPatient classification systemsScarcity

Identifiers

PMID40335554
PMCPMC12059125

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.