Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma: significance of microscopically positive circumferential radial margins.

J. Harvin,G. Lahat,A. Correa,Jared Lee,D. Maru,J. Ajani,E. Marom,J. Welsh,M. Bhutani,G. Walsh,J. Roth,R. Mehran,A. Vaporciyan,D. Rice,S. Swisher

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.10.044

IF: 6.439

2012-02-01

Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Dual process models of clinical reasoning: The central role of knowledge in diagnostic expertise

Geoff Norman,Thierry Pelaccia,Peter Wyer,Jonathan Sherbino

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13998

2024-06-03

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract:Rationale Research on diagnostic reasoning has been conducted for fifty years or more. There is growing consensus that there are two distinct processes involved in human diagnostic reasoning: System 1, a rapid retrieval of possible diagnostic hypotheses, largely automatic and based to a large part on experiential knowledge, and System 2, a slower, analytical, conscious application of formal knowledge to arrive at a diagnostic conclusion. However, within this broad framework, controversy and disagreement abound. In particular, many authors have suggested that the root cause of diagnostic errors is cognitive biases originating in System 1 and propose that educating learners about the types of cognitive biases and their impact on diagnosis would have a major influence on error reduction. Aims and Objectives In the present paper, we take issue with these claims. Method We reviewed the literature to examine the extent to which this theoretical model is supported by the evidence. Results We show that evidence derived from fundamental research in human cognition and studies in clinical medicine challenges the basic assumptions of this theory—that errors arise in System 1 processing as a consequence of cognitive biases, and are corrected by slow, deliberative analytical processing. We claim that, to the contrary, errors derive from both System 1 and System 2 reasoning, that they arise from lack of access to the appropriate knowledge, not from errors of processing, and that the two processes are not essential to the process of diagnostic reasoning. Conclusions The two processing modes are better understood as a consequence of the nature of the knowledge retrieved, not as independent processes.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Clinical reasoning performance assessment: using situated cognition theory as a conceptual framework

Joseph Rencic,Lambert W.T. Schuwirth,Larry D. Gruppen,Steven J. Durning

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/dx-2019-0051

2020-02-06

Diagnosis

Abstract:Abstract Developing valid assessment approaches to clinical reasoning performance has been challenging. Situated cognition theory posits that cognition (e.g. clinical reasoning) emerges from interactions between the clinician and situational (contextual) factors and recognizes an opportunity to gain deeper insights into clinical reasoning performance and its assessment through the study of these interactions. The authors apply situated cognition theory to develop a conceptual model to better understand the assessment of clinical reasoning. The model highlights how the interactions between six contextual factors, including assessee, patient, rater, and environment, assessment method, and task, can impact the outcomes of clinical reasoning performance assessment. Exploring the impact of these interactions can provide insights into the nature of clinical reasoning and its assessment. Three significant implications of this model are: (1) credible clinical reasoning performance assessment requires broad sampling of learners by expert raters in diverse workplace-based contexts; (2) contextual factors should be more explicitly defined and explored; and (3) non-linear statistical models are at times necessary to reveal the complex interactions that can impact clinical reasoning performance assessment.
Diagnostic reasoning and cognitive error in emergency medicine: Implications for teaching and learning

Thierry Pelaccia,Jonathan Sherbino,Peter Wyer,Geoff Norman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/acem.14968

2024-10-22

Academic Emergency Medicine

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.

emergency medicine
Diagnostic Reasoning and Cognitive Biases of Nurse Practitioners

Thomas N Lawson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3928/01484834-20180322-03

2018-04-01

Abstract:Background: Diagnostic reasoning is often used colloquially to describe the process by which nurse practitioners and physicians come to the correct diagnosis, but a rich definition and description of this process has been lacking in the nursing literature. Method: A literature review was conducted with theoretical sampling seeking conceptual insight into diagnostic reasoning. Results: Four common themes emerged: Cognitive Biases and Debiasing Strategies, the Dual Process Theory, Diagnostic Error, and Patient Harm. Relevant cognitive biases are discussed, followed by debiasing strategies and application of the dual process theory to reduce diagnostic error and harm. Conclusion: The accuracy of diagnostic reasoning of nurse practitioners may be improved by incorporating these items into nurse practitioner education and practice. [J Nurs Educ. 2018;57(4):203-208.].
The inseparability of context and clinical reasoning

Andrew Olson,Juliane E. Kämmer,Ahmed Taher,Robert Johnston,Qian Yang,Shawn Mondoux,Sandra Monteiro

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.13969

2024-02-03

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

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.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Deliberate reflection and clinical reasoning: Founding ideas and empirical findings

Sílvia Mamede,Henk G. Schmidt

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.14863

2022-07-01

Medical Education

Abstract:Context The idea that reflection improves reasoning and learning, since long present in other fields, emerged in the 90s in the medical education literature. Since then, the number of publications on reflection as a means to improve diagnostic learning and clinical problem‐solving has increased steeply. Recently, concerns with diagnostic errors have raised further interest in reflection. Several approaches based on reflection have been proposed to reduce clinicians' errors during diagnostic reasoning. What reflection entails varies substantially, and most approaches still require empirical examination. Purpose The present essay aims to help clarify the role of deliberate reflection in diagnostic reasoning. Deliberate reflection is an approach whose effects on diagnostic reasoning and learning have been empirically studied over the past 15 years. The philosophical roots of the approach will be briefly examined, and the theory and practice of deliberate reflection, particularly its effectiveness, will be reviewed. Lessons learned and unresolved issues will be discussed. Discussion The deliberate reflection approach originated from a conceptualization of the nature of reflection practice in medicine informed by Dewey's and Schön's work. The approach guides physicians through systematically reviewing the grounds of their initial diagnosis and considering alternatives. Experimental evidence has supported the effectiveness of deliberate reflection in increasing physicians' diagnostic performance, particularly in non‐straightforward diagnostic tasks. Deliberate reflection has also proved helpful to improve students' diagnostic learning and to facilitate learning of new information. The mechanisms behind the effects of deliberate reflection remain unclear. Tentative explanations focus on the activation/reorganization of prior knowledge induced by deliberate reflection. Its usefulness depends therefore on the difficulty of the problem relative to the clinician's knowledge. Further research should examine variations in instructions on how to reflect upon a case, the value of further guidance while learning from deliberate reflection, and its benefits in real practice.

education, scientific disciplines,health care sciences & services
Diagnostic decision-making and strategies to improve diagnosis

Satid Thammasitboon,William B Cutrer

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cppeds.2013.07.003

Abstract:A significant portion of diagnostic errors arises through cognitive errors resulting from inadequate knowledge, faulty data gathering, and/or faulty verification. Experts estimate that 75% of diagnostic failures can be attributed to clinician diagnostic thinking failure. The cognitive processes that underlie diagnostic thinking of clinicians are complex and intriguing, and it is imperative that clinicians acquire explicit appreciation and application of different cognitive approaches to make decisions better. A dual-process model that unifies many theories of decision-making has emerged as a promising template for understanding how clinicians think and judge efficiently in a diagnostic reasoning process. The identification and implementation of strategies for decreasing or preventing such diagnostic errors has become a growing area of interest and research. Suggested strategies to decrease diagnostic error incidence include increasing clinician's clinical expertise and avoiding inherent cognitive errors to make decisions better. Implementing Interventions focused solely on avoiding errors may work effectively for patient safety issues such as medication errors. Addressing cognitive errors, however, requires equal effort on expanding the individual clinician's expertise. Providing cognitive support to clinicians for robust diagnostic decision-making serves as the final strategic target for decreasing diagnostic errors. Clinical guidelines and algorithms offer another method for streamlining decision-making and decreasing likelihood of cognitive diagnostic errors. Addressing cognitive processing errors is undeniably the most challenging task in reducing diagnostic errors. While many suggested approaches exist, they are mostly based on theories and sciences in cognitive psychology, decision-making, and education. The proposed interventions are primarily suggestions and very few of them have been tested in the actual practice settings. Collaborative research effort is required to effectively address cognitive processing errors. Researchers in various areas, including patient safety/quality improvement, decision-making, and problem solving, must work together to make medical diagnosis more reliable.
Re-visioning clinical reasoning, or stepping out from the skull

Alan Bleakley

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/0142159X.2020.1859098

Abstract:The problem: Progress in teaching and learning clinical reasoning depends upon more sophisticated modelling of the reasoning process itself. Current accounts of clinical reasoning, grounded in experimental psychology, show a bias towards situating reasoning inside the skull, further reduced to neural processes signified by imaging. Such a model is necessary but not sufficient to explain the clinical reasoning process where it fails to embrace cognition extended to the environment and social contexts. A solution: Sufficiency for a model of clinical reasoning must include dialogues between doctor, patient, and colleagues, including the complex influences of history and culture, where artefacts and semiotics such as computers, testing, and narrative structures augment cognition. Here, 'extended' cognition is configured as an outside-in process of 'sensemaking' or 'adaptive expertise'. The future: Current 'predictive processing' cognition models place emphasis on anticipatory cognition, where memory is reconfigured as active reconstruction rather than recall and recognition. Such an 'ecological perception' or 'externalistic' model provides a counter to the current dominant paradigm of 'ego-logical' cognitive reasoning - the latter, again, abstracted from context and located inside the skull. New models of clinical reasoning as an open, dynamic, nonlinear, complex system are called for.
Diagnosis: What Is the Structure of Its Reasoning?

Donald E. Stanley,Robert Hanna

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/pbm.2024.a919712

2024-01-01

Perspectives in Biology and Medicine

Abstract:ABSTRACT: How does the diagnosis process work? This essay traces the philosophical underpinnings of diagnosis from Hume through Kant, Peirce, and Popper, analyzing how pathologists amalgamate sensibility, intuition, and imagination to form new hypotheses that can be tested by evidence and experience.

medicine, research & experimental,history & philosophy of science
[Cognitive errors in diagnostic decision making]

Martin Gäbler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10354-017-0570-6

Abstract:Approximately 10-15% of our diagnostic decisions are faulty and may lead to unfavorable and dangerous outcomes, which could be avoided. These diagnostic errors are mainly caused by cognitive biases in the diagnostic reasoning process.Our medical diagnostic decision-making is based on intuitive "System 1" and analytical "System 2" diagnostic decision-making and can be deviated by unconscious cognitive biases.These deviations can be positively influenced on a systemic and an individual level. For the individual, metacognition (internal withdrawal from the decision-making process) and debiasing strategies, such as verification, falsification and rule out worst-case scenarios, can lead to improved diagnostic decisions making.
The influence of context on diagnostic reasoning: A narrative synthesis of experimental findings

Henk G. Schmidt,Geoffrey R. Norman,Silvia Mamede,Mohi Magzoub

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14023

2024-06-01

Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice

Abstract:Aims and Objectives Contextual information which is implicitly available to physicians during clinical encounters has been shown to influence diagnostic reasoning. To better understand the psychological mechanisms underlying the influence of context on diagnostic accuracy, we conducted a review of experimental research on this topic. Method We searched Web of Science, PubMed, and Scopus for relevant articles and looked for additional records by reading the references and approaching experts. We limited the review to true experiments involving physicians in which the outcome variable was the accuracy of the diagnosis. Results The 43 studies reviewed examined two categories of contextual variables: (a) case‐intrinsic contextual information and (b) case‐extrinsic contextual information. Case‐intrinsic information includes implicit misleading diagnostic suggestions in the disease history of the patient, or emotional volatility of the patient. Case‐extrinsic or situational information includes a similar (but different) case seen previously, perceived case difficulty, or external digital diagnostic support. Time pressure and interruptions are other extrinsic influences that may affect the accuracy of a diagnosis but have produced conflicting findings. Conclusion We propose two tentative hypotheses explaining the role of context in diagnostic accuracy. According to the negative‐affect hypothesis, diagnostic errors emerge when the physician's attention shifts from the relevant clinical findings to the (irrelevant) source of negative affect (for instance patient aggression) raised in a clinical encounter. The early‐diagnosis‐primacy hypothesis attributes errors to the extraordinary influence of the initial hypothesis that comes to the physician's mind on the subsequent collecting and interpretation of case information. Future research should test these mechanisms explicitly. Possible alternative mechanisms such as premature closure or increased production of (irrelevant) rival diagnoses in response to context deserve further scrutiny. Implications for medical education and practice are discussed.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services,medical informatics
Reflecting on diagnosis: The Metacognitive Diagnostic Reasoning Model©

Sarah L Beebe,Angela M McNelis,Majeda El-Banna,Kristina Thomas Dreifuerst

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/JXX.0000000000001018

2024-04-18

Abstract:Background: Diagnostic reasoning is a complex cognitive process that requires intuitive, heuristic processing from knowledge and experience, as well as deliberate and reflective thinking. Evidence on interventions to improve diagnostic reasoning is inconsistent, in part because different terms and models are used to guide research. Purpose: To present a model of the factors of diagnostic reasoning in Advanced Practice Registered Nurses (APRNs), based on a review of the literature supporting the Metacognitive Diagnostic Reasoning (MDR) Model©. Methodology: A review of the literature through systematic database search, historical articles, texts, and documents was conducted from inception through August 2023 (N = 41). Results: The MDR model depicts the following concepts: (1) metacognition is viewed as the driving force of diagnostic reasoning; (2) dual cognitive processing and knowledge representations are used; (3) once a diagnosis, treatment plan, and evaluation are complete, APRNs use metacognition for the next patient encounter, using repetition for improvement of the process. Conclusions: The model combines key concepts of diagnostic reasoning, providing a framework for researchers to develop and test, and faculty to teach and evaluate this complex process in learners. Implications: The MDR model provides research opportunities to validate its usefulness and effectiveness and a framework to guide educational research, contributing to the body of evidence-based practice in nursing. In addition, it may foster ongoing education and training that could lead to more accurate diagnoses and treatment plans, ultimately improving patient care by reducing diagnostic errors.
The recurrence of iatrogenic femoral artery pseudoaneurysm after occlusion by ultrasound guided percutaneous thrombin injection.

J. Madaric,A. Mistrik,I. Vulev,B. Líška,Matej Vozar,P. Lederer,M. Gocar,Terezia Kozlovska,V. Fridrich,B. de Bruyne,J. Bartunek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4244/EIJV5I4A70

2009-09-01

EuroIntervention

Abstract:AIMS To evaluate efficacy of percutaneous ultrasound-guided thrombin injection (UGTI) of iatrogenic femoral artery pseudoaneurysm (PSA) and to identify the risk factors associated with PSA recurrence. METHODS AND RESULTS We treated 140 patients aged 76 years (range 49-83) presented with femoral artery PSA after cardiac catheterisation by percutaneous UGTI (500 IU/ml solution of activated human thrombin). Factors associated with the recurrence of PSA were analysed. One hundred nineteen patients were successfully treated by one injection of thrombin (immediate success rate 85%). In 19 patients (13.6%), short local compression following injection was needed for complete occlusion (overall success rate 98.6%, 138/140). In one case, progression of PSA required conversion to surgery (0.7%). In one patient with pre-existing stenosis of superficial femoral artery, acute limb ischaemia developed after UGTI (0.7%). The recurrence of PSA in 30-days follow-up (10 patients, 7%) was associated with obesity (BMI>30, OR=1.39, 95% CI 1.09-1.78, p<0.05), and with extensive combination of anti-aggregation and anti-coagulation therapy (OR=2.11, 95% CI 1.23-3.62, p<0.0001) as revealed by both univariate and multivariate analysis. CONCLUSIONS The UGTI is a safe and effective treatment of iatrogenic femoral artery PSA. Recurrence is low and associated with obesity and extensive use of combined anti-aggregation and anti-coagulation therapy.
Clinical reasoning in real-world practice: a primer for medical trainees and practitioners

Isaac K S Ng,Wilson G W Goh,Desmond B Teo,Kar Mun Chong,Li Feng Tan,Chia Meng Teoh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/postmj/qgae079

2024-07-15

Abstract:Clinical reasoning is a crucial skill and defining characteristic of the medical profession, which relates to intricate cognitive and decision-making processes that are needed to solve real-world clinical problems. However, much of our current competency-based medical education systems have focused on imparting swathes of content knowledge and skills to our medical trainees, without an adequate emphasis on strengthening the cognitive schema and psychological processes that govern actual decision-making in clinical environments. Nonetheless, flawed clinical reasoning has serious repercussions on patient care, as it is associated with diagnostic errors, inappropriate investigations, and incongruent or suboptimal management plans that can result in significant morbidity and even mortality. In this article, we discuss the psychological constructs of clinical reasoning in the form of cognitive 'thought processing' models and real-world contextual or emotional influences on clinical decision-making. In addition, we propose practical strategies, including pedagogical development of a personal cognitive schema, mitigating strategies to combat cognitive bias and flawed reasoning, and emotional regulation and self-care techniques, which can be adopted in medical training to optimize physicians' clinical reasoning in real-world practice that effectively translates learnt knowledge and skill sets into good decisions and outcomes.
Clinical Reasoning and Artificial Intelligence

Ali Ghasemi,Mahdi Naeimaeyi aali

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5812/amh-134440

2023-08-09

Annals of Military and Health Sciences Research

Abstract:Context: Artificial intelligence refers to a set of systems that are capable of performing functions similar to human intelligent functions. Today, artificial intelligence has been successfully incorporated into clinical decision support systems (CDSS). Evidence Acquisition: The current study aimed to briefly present a narrative mini-review on clinical reasoning and artificial intelligence. Data were gathered from Google Scholar, ScienceDirect, and PubMed databases using the "clinical decision support system, artificial intelligence, and clinical reasoning" keywords. Results: Clinical decision support systems are divided into two categories: knowledge-based and data-driven. The first category is called the rule-based expert system, and the second category is also named the machine-learning system. The usefulness of the mentioned systems and artificial intelligence in interpreting algorithmic and statistical information, where the human element can easily make a mistake, is that they are much more efficient and work with fewer errors. However, when it comes to dealing with a patient and his complaints and symptoms, because of the requirement for clinical judgment, the human element works much better in obtaining a mental image of the patient’s condition. Artificial intelligence is specifically used in scenarios such as the diagnosis of electrolyte disorders, interpreting ECG findings, and recognizing the causes of myocardial hypertrophy. Nonetheless, artificial intelligence has challenges, such as a lack of responsibility for medical decisions and treatment errors. Conclusions: Referring to the above-mentioned benefits and challenges of artificial intelligence, artificial and human intelligence cannot be superior to each other, and both have an irreplaceable role in clinical decision-making. The new view is that the goal of CDSS is to help the physician make better decisions by processing vast pieces of information as a whole entity rather than individually.
Teaching clinical reasoning: principles from the literature to help improve instruction from the classroom to the bedside

Steven J Durning,Eulho Jung,Do-Hwan Kim,Young-Mee Lee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3946/kjme.2024.292

Abstract:Clinical reasoning has been characterized as being an essential aspect of being a physician. Despite this, clinical reasoning has a variety of definitions and medical error, which is often attributed to clinical reasoning, has been reported to be a leading cause of death in the United States and abroad. Further, instructors struggle with teaching this essential ability which often does not play a significant role in the curriculum. In this article, we begin with defining clinical reasoning and then discuss four principles from the literature as well as a variety of techniques for teaching these principles to help ground an instructors' understanding in clinical reasoning. We also tackle contemporary challenges in teaching clinical reasoning such as the integration of artificial intelligence and strategies to help with transitions in instruction (e.g., from the classroom to the clinic or from medical school to residency/registrar training) and suggest next steps for research and innovation in clinical reasoning.
Learning From What You Don't Observe

Mark Alan Peot,Ross D. Shachter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1301.7407

2013-01-30

Abstract:The process of diagnosis involves learning about the state of a system from various observations of symptoms or findings about the system. Sophisticated Bayesian (and other) algorithms have been developed to revise and maintain beliefs about the system as observations are made. Nonetheless, diagnostic models have tended to ignore some common sense reasoning exploited by human diagnosticians; In particular, one can learn from which observations have not been made, in the spirit of conversational implicature. There are two concepts that we describe to extract information from the observations not made. First, some symptoms, if present, are more likely to be reported before others. Second, most human diagnosticians and expert systems are economical in their data-gathering, searching first where they are more likely to find symptoms present. Thus, there is a desirable bias toward reporting symptoms that are present. We develop a simple model for these concepts that can significantly improve diagnostic inference.

Artificial Intelligence
A theory of diagnosis from first principles

Raymond Reiter

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0004-3702(87)90062-2

IF: 14.4

1987-04-01

Artificial Intelligence

Abstract:Suppose one is given a description of a system, together with an observation of the system's behaviour which conflicts with the way the system is meant to behave. The diagnostic problem is to determine those components of the system which, when assumed to be functioning abnormally, will explain the discrepancy between the observed and correct system behaviour.We propose a general theory for this problem. The theory requires only that the system be described in a suitable logic. Moreover, there are many such suitable logics, e.g. first-order, temporal, dynamic, etc. As a result, the theory accommodates diagnostic reasoning in a wide variety of practical settings, including digital and analogue circuits, medicine, and database updates. The theory leads to an algorithm for computing all diagnoses, and to various results concerning principles of measurement for discriminating among competing diagnoses. Finally, the theory reveals close connections between diagnostic reasoning and nonmonotonic reasoning.

computer science, artificial intelligence
Clinical Reasoning in Medical Education: A Primer for Medical Students

Graham Ka-Hon Shea,Pun-Chuen Chan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10401334.2023.2230201

2023-07-03

Abstract:Issue: Proper application of clinical reasoning is a prerequisite toward safe practice. Formal instruction on clinical reasoning remains lacking in medical curricula, especially in preparation for the transition from pre-clinical to clinical years. Evidence: Although medical educators have published abundantly on clinical reasoning and acknowledge this to be an essential part of medical education, there remains a global curricular deficiency in developing this skillset. Here we introduce the reader to clinical reasoning frameworks with an emphasis upon practical application. Our focus is upon medical students transitioning from pre-clinical to clinical years of medical school who tend to be overwhelmed with facts but have limited sense of diagnostic approaches due to lack of instruction. Implications: In understanding systematic approaches to clinical reasoning of relevance to medical diagnosis, students will be able to process knowledge in a clinically relevant and discriminatory manner to facilitate problem solving. Upon internship and residency, they will be better prepared for self-learning and reflection as they understand how to hone their capability for diagnosis and management. Medical educators need to acknowledge that clinical reasoning is a practical academic discipline requiring greater curricular emphasis.
Abductive and Consistency-Based Diagnosis Revisited: a Modeling Perspective

Daniele Theseider Dupre'

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.cs/0003016

2000-03-07

Abstract:Diagnostic reasoning has been characterized logically as consistency-based reasoning or abductive reasoning. Previous analyses in the literature have shown, on the one hand, that choosing the (in general more restrictive) abductive definition may be appropriate or not, depending on the content of the knowledge base [Console&Torasso91], and, on the other hand, that, depending on the choice of the definition the same knowledge should be expressed in different form [Poole94]. Since in Model-Based Diagnosis a major problem is finding the right way of abstracting the behavior of the system to be modeled, this paper discusses the relation between modeling, and in particular abstraction in the model, and the notion of diagnosis.

Artificial Intelligence

Neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery for esophageal adenocarcinoma: significance of microscopically positive circumferential radial margins.

Dual process models of clinical reasoning: The central role of knowledge in diagnostic expertise

Clinical reasoning performance assessment: using situated cognition theory as a conceptual framework

Diagnostic reasoning and cognitive error in emergency medicine: Implications for teaching and learning

Diagnostic Reasoning and Cognitive Biases of Nurse Practitioners

The inseparability of context and clinical reasoning

Deliberate reflection and clinical reasoning: Founding ideas and empirical findings

Diagnostic decision-making and strategies to improve diagnosis

Re-visioning clinical reasoning, or stepping out from the skull

Diagnosis: What Is the Structure of Its Reasoning?

[Cognitive errors in diagnostic decision making]

The influence of context on diagnostic reasoning: A narrative synthesis of experimental findings

Reflecting on diagnosis: The Metacognitive Diagnostic Reasoning Model©

The recurrence of iatrogenic femoral artery pseudoaneurysm after occlusion by ultrasound guided percutaneous thrombin injection.

Clinical reasoning in real-world practice: a primer for medical trainees and practitioners

Clinical Reasoning and Artificial Intelligence

Teaching clinical reasoning: principles from the literature to help improve instruction from the classroom to the bedside

Learning From What You Don't Observe

A theory of diagnosis from first principles

Clinical Reasoning in Medical Education: A Primer for Medical Students

Abductive and Consistency-Based Diagnosis Revisited: a Modeling Perspective