MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2782103841

The Effects of Disease Category on Diagnostic Problem Solving in Mammography

2008· article· en· W2782103841 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Roger Azevedo, Gwyneth A. Lewis, Roberta Klatzky, Emily Siler

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMammographyTask (project management)DiseaseDomain (mathematical analysis)Think aloud protocolMedical imagingMedicineCognitionComputer sciencePsychologyMedical physicsRadiologyPathologyHuman–computer interactionBreast cancerMathematicsPsychiatry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research on diagnostic problem solving is devoted to understanding the cognitive factors underlying the superior performance exhibited by medical professionals in their domain. In this study we analyzed think-aloud protocols and video recordings of staff and resident radiologists as they diagnosed mammograms during an interactive problem solving task. Analyses revealed statistically significant differences in radiologists ’ usage of problem solving operators (PSOs) and several performance measures between benign and malignant breast disease cases. Results suggest that additional factors outside of expertise should be considered in order to better understand diagnostic problem solving in a medical domain. The effects of disease type on performance and diagnostic problem solving should guide future development of medical tutoring systems.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship (California Digital Library)→Same topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills→French-language works237,207→