Using Clinical Data Visualizations in Electronic Health Record User Interfaces to Enhance Medical Student Diagnostic Reasoning: Randomized Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In medicine, the clinical decision-making process can be described using the dual-process theory consisting of the fast, intuitive "System 1," commonly seen in seasoned physicians, and the slow, deliberative "System 2," associated with medical students. System-1-type diagnostic reasoning is thought to be less cognitively burdensome, thereby reducing physician error. To date, limited literature exists on inducing System-1-type diagnosis in medical students through cognitive heuristics, particularly while using modern electronic health record (EHR) interfaces. OBJECTIVE: In this experimental pilot study, we aimed to (1) attempt to induce System-1-type diagnostic reasoning in inexperienced medical students through the acquisition of cognitive user interface heuristics and (2) understand the impact of clinical patient data visualizations on students' cognitive load and medical education. METHODS: The participants were third- and fourth-year medical students recruited from the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine who had completed 1+ clinical rotations. The students were presented 8 patient cases on a novel EHR, featuring a prominent data visualization designed to foster at-a-glance rapid case assessment, and asked to diagnose the patient. Half of the participants were shown 4 of the 8 cases repeatedly, up to 4 times with 30 seconds per case (Group A), and the other half of the participants were shown cases twice with 2 minutes per case (Group B). All participants were then asked to provide full diagnoses of all 8 cases. Finally, the participants were asked to evaluate and elaborate on their experience with the system; content analysis was subsequently performed on these user experience interviews. RESULTS: A total of 15 students participated. The participants in Group A scored slightly higher on average than those in Group B, with a mean percentage correct of 76% (95% CI 0.68-0.84) versus 69% (95% CI 0.58-0.80), and spent on average 50% less time per question than Group B diagnosing patients (13.98 seconds vs 19.13 seconds, P=.03, respectively). When comparing the novel EHR design to previously used EHRs, 73% (n=11) of participants rated the new version on par or higher (3+/5). Ease of use and intuitiveness of this new system rated similarly high (mean score 3.73/5 and 4.2/5, respectively). In qualitative thematic analysis of poststudy interviews, most participants (n=11, 73%) spoke to "pattern-recognition" cognitive heuristic strategies consistent with System 1 decision-making. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the possibility of inducing type-1 diagnostics in learners and the potential for data visualization and user design heuristics to reduce cognitive burden in clinical settings. Clinical data presentation in the diagnostic reasoning process is ripe for innovation, and further research is needed to explore the benefit of using such visualizations in medical education.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".