The inseparability of context and clinical reasoning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early descriptions of clinical reasoning have described a dual process model that relies on analytical or nonanalytical approaches to develop a working diagnosis. In this classic research, clinical reasoning is portrayed as an individual-driven cognitive process based on gathering information from the patient encounter, forming mental representations that rely on previous experience and engaging developed patterns to drive working diagnoses and management plans. Indeed, approaches to patient safety, as well as teaching and assessing clinical reasoning focus on the individual clinician, often ignoring the complexity of the system surrounding the diagnostic process. More recent theories and evidence portray clinical reasoning as a dynamic collection of processes that takes place among and between persons across clinical settings. Yet, clinical reasoning, taken as both an individual and a system process, is insufficiently supported by theories of cognition based on individual clinicals and lacks the specificity needed to describe the phenomenology of clinical reasoning. In this review, we reinforce that the modern healthcare ecosystem - with its people, processes and technology - is the context in which health care encounters and clinical reasoning take place.
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 | 0.010 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
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".