Clinical decision making: how surgeons do it
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical decision making is a core competency of surgical practice. It involves two distinct types of mental process best considered as the ends of a continuum, ranging from intuitive and subconscious to analytical and conscious. In practice, individual decisions are usually reached by a combination of each, according to the complexity of the situation and the experience/expertise of the surgeon. An expert moves effortlessly along this continuum, according to need, able to apply learned rules or algorithms to specific presentations, choosing these as a result of either pattern recognition or analytical thinking. The expert recognizes and responds quickly to any mismatch between what is observed and what was expected, coping with gaps in information and making decisions even where critical data may be uncertain or unknown. Even for experts, the cognitive processes involved are difficult to articulate as they tend to be very complex. However, if surgeons are to assist trainees in developing their decision-making skills, the processes need to be identified and defined, and the competency needs to be measurable. This paper examines the processes of clinical decision making in three contexts: making a decision about how to manage a patient; preparing for an operative procedure; and reviewing progress during an operative procedure. The models represented here are an exploration of the complexity of the processes, designed to assist surgeons understand how expert clinical decision making occurs and to highlight the challenge of teaching these skills to surgical trainees.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.211 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it