MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3195559434 · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2020-012456

Improving diagnostic performance through feedback: the Diagnosis Learning Cycle

2021· review· en· W3195559434 on OpenAlexaff
Carolina Fernández Branson, Michelle Williams, Teresa M. Chan, Mark L. Graber, Kathleen P. Lane, S. Grieser, Zach Landis‐Lewis, James Cooke, Divvy K. Upadhyay, Shawn Mondoux, Hardeep Singh, Laura Zwaan, Charles P. Friedman, Andrew Olson

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Quality & Safety · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersHealth Services Research and DevelopmentGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsMedicineLearning cycleMedical educationProcess managementMedical physicsManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Errors in reasoning are a common cause of diagnostic error. However, it is difficult to improve performance partly because providers receive little feedback on diagnostic performance. Examining means of providing consistent feedback and enabling continuous improvement may provide novel insights for diagnostic performance. METHODS: We developed a model for improving diagnostic performance through feedback using a six-step qualitative research process, including a review of existing models from within and outside of medicine, a survey, semistructured interviews with individuals working in and outside of medicine, the development of the new model, an interdisciplinary consensus meeting, and a refinement of the model. RESULTS: We applied theory and knowledge from other fields to help us conceptualise learning and comparison and translate that knowledge into an applied diagnostic context. This helped us develop a model, the Diagnosis Learning Cycle, which illustrates the need for clinicians to be given feedback about both their confidence and reasoning in a diagnosis and to be able to seamlessly compare diagnostic hypotheses and outcomes. This information would be stored in a repository to allow accessibility. Such a process would standardise diagnostic feedback and help providers learn from their practice and improve diagnostic performance. This model adds to existing models in diagnosis by including a detailed picture of diagnostic reasoning and the elements required to improve outcomes and calibration. CONCLUSION: A consistent, standard programme of feedback that includes representations of clinicians' confidence and reasoning is a common element in non-medical fields that could be applied to medicine. Adapting this approach to diagnosis in healthcare is a promising next step. This information must be stored reliably and accessed consistently. The next steps include testing the Diagnosis Learning Cycle in clinical settings.

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)0.113
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.290
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.113
Threshold uncertainty score0.599

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1130.290
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.013
Scholarly communication0.0110.016
Open science0.0060.011
Research integrity0.0060.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations41
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ Quality & SafetySame topicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic SkillsFrench-language works237,207