MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753445517 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v12i2.166

To Err is Human: A Case-Based Review of Cognitive Bias and its Role in Clinical Decision Making

2017· review· en· W2753445517 on OpenAlex
Siraj Mithoowani, Augustin Toma, Andrew Mulloy, Ameen Patel

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsJuravinski HospitalMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCognitionClinical decision makingCognitive biasIntensive care medicineCognitive psychologyPsychiatryPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cognitive biases, or systematic errors in cognition, are important contributors to diagnostic error in medicine. In our review, we explore the psychological underpinnings of cognitive bias and highlight several common biases using clinical cases. We conclude by reviewing strategies to improve diagnostic accuracy and by discussing controversies and future research directions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.157
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.157
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.265
GPT teacher head0.526
Teacher spread0.262 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it