Physician Cognitive Processing as a Source of Diagnostic and Treatment Disparities in Coronary Heart Disease
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
Literature on health disparities documents variations in clinical decision-making across patient characteristics, physician attributes, and among health care systems. Using data from a vignette-based factorial experiment of 256 primary care providers, we examine the cognitive basis of disparities in the diagnosis and treatment of coronary heart disease (CHD). We explore whether previously observed disparities are due to physicians (1) not fully considering CHD for certain patients or (2) considering CHD but then discounting it. Half of the physicians in the experiment were primed with explicit directions to consider a CHD diagnosis, and half were not. Relative to their unprimed counterparts, primed physicians were more likely to order CHD-related tests and prescriptions. However, the main effects for patient gender and age remained, suggesting that physicians treated these demographic variables as diagnostic features indicating lower risk of CHD for these patients. This finding suggests that physician appeals to perceived base rates have the potential to contribute to the further reification of socially constructed health statistics.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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