MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2943533685 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000002768

Management Reasoning: Implications for Health Professions Educators and a Research Agenda

2019· article· en· W2943533685 on OpenAlexaff
David A. Cook, Steven J. Durning, Jonathan Sherbino, Larry D. Gruppen

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityHamilton Health Sciences
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationMedical diagnosisPlan (archaeology)Knowledge managementCognitionManagement sciencePsychologyComputer scienceMedicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Substantial research has illuminated the clinical reasoning processes involved in diagnosis (diagnostic reasoning). Far less is known about the processes entailed in patient management (management reasoning), including decisions about treatment, further testing, follow-up visits, and allocation of limited resources. The authors' purpose is to articulate key differences between diagnostic and management reasoning, implications for health professions education, and areas of needed research.Diagnostic reasoning focuses primarily on classification (i.e., assigning meaningful labels to a pattern of symptoms, signs, and test results). Management reasoning involves negotiation of a plan and ongoing monitoring/adjustment of that plan. A diagnosis can usually be established as correct or incorrect, whereas there are typically multiple reasonable management approaches. Patient preferences, clinician attitudes, clinical contexts, and logistical constraints should not influence diagnosis, whereas management nearly always involves prioritization among such factors. Diagnostic classifications do not necessarily require direct patient interaction, whereas management prioritizations require communication and negotiation. Diagnoses can be defined at a single time point (given enough information), whereas management decisions are expected to evolve over time. Finally, management is typically more complex than diagnosis.Management reasoning may require educational approaches distinct from those used for diagnostic reasoning, including teaching distinct skills (e.g., negotiating with patients, tolerating uncertainty, and monitoring treatment) and developing assessments that account for underlying reasoning processes and multiple acceptable solutions.Areas of needed research include if and how cognitive processes differ for management and diagnostic reasoning, how and when management reasoning abilities develop, and how to support management reasoning in clinical practice.

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)0.089
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.166
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.473

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0890.166
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0070.016
Scholarly communication0.0200.034
Open science0.0060.009
Research integrity0.0140.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0200.003

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.533
Teacher spread0.390 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations90
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademic MedicineSame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207