Diagnostic reasoning and cognitive error in emergency medicine: Implications for teaching and learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate diagnosis in emergency medicine (EM) is high stakes and challenging. Research into physicians' clinical reasoning has been ongoing since the late 1970s. The dual-process theory has established itself as a valid model, including in EM. It is based on the distinction between two information-processing systems. System 1 rapidly generates one or more diagnostic hypotheses almost instantaneously, driven by experiential knowledge, while System 2 proceeds more slowly and analytically, applying formal rules to arrive at a final diagnosis. METHODS: We reviewed the literature on dual-process theory in the fields of cognitive science, medical education and emergency medicine. RESULTS AND CONCLUSION: The literature reflects two prominent interpretations regarding the relationship between the fast and slow phases and these interpretations carry very different implications for the training of clinical learners. One interpretation, prominent in the EM community, presents it as a "check-and-balance" framework in which most diagnostic error is caused by cognitive biases originating within System 1. As a result, EM residents are frequently advised to deploy analytical (System 2) strategies to correct such biases. However, such teaching approaches are not supported by research into the nature of diagnostic reasoning. An alternative interpretation assumes a harmonious relationship between Systems 1 and 2 in which both fast and slow processes are driven by underlying knowledge that conditions performance and the occurrence of errors. Educational strategies corresponding to this alternative have not been explored in the EM literature. In this paper, we offer proposals for improving the teaching and learning of diagnostic reasoning by EM residents.
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 | 0.060 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".