Effect of stress on clinical reasoning during simulated ambulatory consultations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The goal of this study was to examine the impact of subjective and physiological stress responses on medical students' diagnostic reasoning and communication skills. METHOD: A prospective randomized quantitative study was undertaken, looking at ambulatory consultations in internal medicine. On the first day (baseline day), volunteer year 6 students (n = 41) participated in a simulated ambulatory consultation with standardized patients (SPs). On the second day (study day), one week later, they were randomly assigned to two groups: a low stress (n = 20) and a high stress (n = 21) simulated ambulatory consultation. Stress was measured using validated questionnaires and salivary cortisol. The SPs assessed the students' reasoning and communication. The students completed assessments of their clinical reasoning after the consultations. RESULTS: Although stress measures were all significantly higher in the high-stress condition (all p < 0.05), no differences were found in diagnostic accuracy and justification scores. However, correlational analyses revealed a negative correlation between multiple-stress measures and the students' ability to generate arguments for differential diagnoses. CONCLUSION: Stress was associated with impairments in clinical reasoning, of a nature typically suggestive of premature closure.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".