MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281492908 · doi:10.1097/acm.0000000000004758

Development and Pilot Testing of a Data-Rich Clinical Reasoning Training and Assessment Tool

2022· article· en· W4281492908 on OpenAlexaff
Jason E. Waechter, Jon G. Allen, Chel Hee Lee, Laura Zwaan

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademic Medicine · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicClinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentMedical educationComputer scienceWorkloadSummative assessmentPsychologyMedicineMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PROBLEM: Clinical reasoning is a core competency for physicians and also a common source of errors, driving high rates of misdiagnoses and patient harm. Efforts to provide training in and assessment of clinical reasoning skills have proven challenging because they are either labor- and resource-prohibitive or lack important data relevant to clinical reasoning. The authors report on the creation and use of online simulation cases to train and assess clinical reasoning skills among medical students. APPROACH: Using an online library of simulation cases, they collected data relevant to the creation of the differential diagnosis, analysis of the history and physical exam, diagnostic justification, ordering tests; interpreting tests, and ranking of the most probable diagnosis. These data were compared with an expert-created scorecard, and detailed quantitative and qualitative feedback were generated and provided to the learners and instructors. OUTCOMES: Following an initial pilot study to troubleshoot the software, the authors conducted a second pilot study in which 2 instructors developed and provided 6 cases to 75 second-year medical students. The students completed 376 cases (average 5.0 cases per student), generating more than 40,200 data points that the software analyzed to inform individual learner formative feedback relevant to clinical reasoning skills. The instructors reported that the workload was acceptable and sustainable. NEXT STEPS: The authors are actively expanding the library of clinical cases and providing more students and schools with formative feedback in clinical reasoning using our tool. Further, they have upgraded the software to identify and provide feedback on behaviors consistent with premature closure, anchoring, and confirmation biases. They are currently collecting and analyzing additional data using the same software to inform validation and psychometric outcomes for future publications.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.065
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.065
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.315
GPT teacher head0.479
Teacher spread0.164 · 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

Citations9
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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