Trial reportMedical education2026
Premature closure underlies bias in medical diagnosis in students: A randomised controlled experiment.
Trial report in Medical education, 2026. 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.
- The stories the data can tell: The tenuous link between evidence and theory.Medical education · 2026Article
- Rethinking AI in clinical decision support: a framework for reciprocal human-AI interaction.Frontiers in digital health · 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
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThe purpose of the study reported in this article was to shed light on the cognitive mechanism mediating between biasing information and diagnostic error. The literature suggests at least two different hypotheses: premature closure leading biased participants to spend less time on diagnosis or increased competition between diagnostic hypotheses. The latter hypothesis predicts that biased participants would spend more time reaching a diagnosis.
methodUsing the salient distracting findings (SDF) experimental paradigm, we biased 58 fourth-year medical students while diagnosing 12 clinical vignettes in a within-group incomplete block design under three conditions: cases presented without SDF, with SDF at the beginning and with SDF at the end. For each of these conditions, diagnostic accuracy, the number of SDF-related mistakes and time per word needed to process the case were recorded. The data were analysed using linear mixed modelling. Estimated marginal mean scores were reported.
resultsParticipants confronted with salient distracting features (SDFs) at the beginning of a clinical case demonstrated significantly lower diagnostic accuracy (mean 0.11) compared with the No-SDF condition (0.27), representing a 61% reduction (F
conclusionThese findings demonstrate that biasing information increases diagnostic error in medical students and that only early bias is associated with reduced information processing. The data do not support the competition hypothesis for early bias, as processing time did not increase under biasing conditions. Premature closure can therefore be directly observed rather than inferred, inviting further research.
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.