Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: A goal of health care is to reduce symptoms and improve health status, whereas continuing dubious treatments can contribute to complacency, discourage the search for alternatives, and lead to shortfalls in care. Objective: To test a potential bias in intuitive reasoning following a marginal improvement in symptoms after a dubious treatment (post hoc bias). Design, Setting, and Participants: Surveys eliciting treatment recommendations for hypothetical patients were sent to community members throughout North America recruited via an online survey platform in the early winter months of 2023 and 2024 and presented to health care professionals (pharmacists who were approached in person using a secret shopper technique) in the summer months of 2023. Exposure: Respondents received randomized versions of surveys that differed according to whether vague symptoms improved or remained unchanged after a dubious treatment. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a recommendation to continue treatment. Results: In total, 1497 community members (mean [SD] age, 38.1 [12.5] years; 663 female [55.3%]) and 100 health care professionals were contacted. The first scenario described a patient with a sore throat who took unprescribed antibiotics; respondents were more likely to continue antibiotics after initial treatment if there was a marginal improvement in symptoms vs when symptoms remained unchanged (67 of 150 respondents [45%] vs 25 of respondents [17%]; odds ratio [OR], 3.98 [95% CI, 2.33-6.78]; P < .001). Another scenario described a patient with wrist pain who wore a copper bracelet; respondents were more likely to continue wearing the copper bracelet after initial care was followed by a marginal improvement in symptoms vs when symptoms remained unchanged (78 of 100 respondents [78%] vs 25 of 99 respondents [25%]; OR, 16.19 [95% CI, 5.32-19.52]; P < .001). A third scenario described a patient with fatigue who took unprescribed vitamin B12; respondents were more likely to continue taking vitamin B12 when initial treatment was followed by a marginal improvement in symptoms vs when symptoms remained unchanged (80 of 100 respondents [80%] vs 33 of 100 respondents [33%]; OR, 7.91 [95% CI, 4.18-14.97]; P < .001). Four further scenarios involving dubious treatments found similar results, including when tested on health care professionals. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study of clinical scenarios, a marginal improvement in symptoms led patients to continue a dubious and sometimes costly treatment, suggesting that clinicians should caution patients against post hoc bias.
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 | 0.422 | 0.708 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.002 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".