The Effectiveness of Cognitive Forcing Strategies to Decrease Diagnostic Error: An Exploratory Study
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
BACKGROUND: Cognitive forcing strategies, a form of metacognition, have been advocated as a strategy to prevent diagnostic error. Increasingly, curricula are being implemented in medical training to address this error. Yet there is no experimental evidence that these curricula are effective. DESCRIPTION: This was an exploratory, prospective study using consecutive enrollment of 56 senior medical students during their emergency medicine rotation. Students received interactive, standardized cognitive forcing strategy training. EVALUATION: Using a cross-over design to assess transfer between similar (to instructional cases) and novel diagnostic cases, students were evaluated on 6 test cases. Forty-seven students were immediately tested and 9 were tested 2 weeks later. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics and a McNemar chi-square test. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to explore the impact of cognitive forcing strategy training on diagnostic error. Our preliminary findings suggest that application and retention is poor. Further large studies are required to determine if transfer across diagnostic formats occurs.
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 | 0.011 | 0.384 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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