ArticlePhilosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM2025
The logic of medical reasoning: toward an integrated inductive, deductive, and abductive approach to clinical practices.
Article in Philosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM, 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.
- Paradigm shift in medicine and in clinical reasoning method: time has come for a new chest semiotics.Multidisciplinary respiratory medicine · 2026Article
- Engagement in Evidence-Based Practice Activities and Thinking by Rehabilitation Therapists: Predictive Factors.Archives of rehabilitation research and clinical translation · 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
introductionThis study explored the logical underpinnings of medical reasoning, focusing on the integration of abduction, deduction, and induction within clinical decision-making. It aimed to highlight the role of abduction in generating hypotheses, particularly in complex cases that defy standard protocols, and to examine the synergy between human expertise and AI-assisted tools in enhancing diagnostic accuracy.
methodsThe research employed a qualitative approach, analyzing philosophical theories and integrating them with clinical case studies. The study examined the interplay of logical processes in medical diagnostics and the application of abduction in rare and novel cases. Additionally, the potential of AI-assisted tools to support clinical reasoning and reduce diagnostic noise was explored.
resultsAbduction was identified as a critical yet often underappreciated element in medical reasoning essential for hypothesis generation. Deduction refines hypotheses against established medical knowledge, while induction validates decisions through empirical data. AI-assisted tools were found to enhance diagnostic accuracy by reducing noise, although they did not engage in the musement or genuine abductions that characterize human clinical reasoning. DISCUSSION: The study concluded that a triadic approach to clinical reasoning, incorporating abduction, deduction, and induction, is essential for effective medical diagnostics. In particular, abduction plays a pivotal role in navigating the complexities of clinical decision-making. The integration of AI tools can reduce noise and improve diagnostic processes, but the essential human elements of insight and judgment remain irreplaceable in patient care.
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.