Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41188945›Full record

ArticlePhilosophy, ethics, and humanities in medicine : PEHM2025

Medical expertise as hybrid expertise: a proposal for the articulation of medical knowledge.

Ana Cuevas-Badallo, Obdulia Torres González

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Ana Cuevas-BadalloUniversity of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain. acuevas@usal.es.
Obdulia Torres GonzálezUniversity of Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain.

Funding

Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation, Government of Spain PID2019-105783GB-I00
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Medical expertise is traditionally understood through two main epistemic perspectives: propositional-cognitive knowledge, which emphasizes scientific and theoretical understanding, and practical-experiential knowledge, which is rooted in experience and tacit skills. Existing models often focus on one of these dimensions, failing to capture the full complexity of medical expertise. This study proposes a hybrid expertise (HE) framework that integrates both forms of knowledge, offering a more comprehensive characterization of how expertise is acquired and applied in medical practice. This study employs a theoretical-analytical approach, drawing from established distinctions in epistemology, such as know-how vs. know-that, tacit vs. explicit knowledge, and declarative vs. procedural knowledge. This perspective aligns with related concepts such as adaptive expertise (AE) and interdisciplinary expertise (IE). Additionally, we challenge the assumption that all medical students can become experts with proper training, arguing that expertise requires exceptional performance beyond mere competence. This perspective has important implications for medical education, emphasizing the need for curricula that balance theoretical instruction with experiential learning. These insights contribute to a more nuanced understanding of expertise, with potential applications in medical training, policy-making, and healthcare practice.

Indexed as

Clinical CompetenceEducation, MedicalKnowledgeHumansHybrid expertiseKnow howKnow thatMedical expertisePropositional and experiential knowledgeTacit knowledge

Identifiers

PMID41188945
PMCPMC12584328

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.