Teaching metacognition in clinical decision-making using a novel mnemonic checklist: an exploratory study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Metacognition is a cognitive debiasing strategy that clinicians can use to deliberately detach themselves from the immediate context of a clinical decision, which allows them to reflect upon the thinking process. However, cognitive debiasing strategies are often most needed when the clinician cannot afford the time to use them. A mnemonic checklist known as TWED (T = threat, W = what else, E = evidence and D = dispositional factors) was recently created to facilitate metacognition. This study explores the hypothesis that the TWED checklist improves the ability of medical students to make better clinical decisions. METHODS: Two groups of final-year medical students from Universiti Sains Malaysia, Malaysia, were recruited to participate in this quasi-experimental study. The intervention group (n = 21) received educational intervention that introduced the TWED checklist, while the control group (n = 19) received a tutorial on basic electrocardiography. Post-intervention, both groups received a similar assessment on clinical decision-making based on five case scenarios. RESULTS: The mean score of the intervention group was significantly higher than that of the control group (18.50 ± 4.45 marks vs. 12.50 ± 2.84 marks, p < 0.001). In three of the five case scenarios, students in the intervention group obtained higher scores than those in the control group. CONCLUSION: The results of this study support the use of the TWED checklist to facilitate metacognition in clinical decision-making.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".