• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

法医学决策中的认知偏差。

Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions.

机构信息

University College London (UCL), London, UK.

PathologyExpert Inc, San Francisco, CA, USA.

出版信息

J Forensic Sci. 2021 Sep;66(5):1751-1757. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14697. Epub 2021 Feb 20.

DOI:10.1111/1556-4029.14697
PMID:33608908
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8451910/
Abstract

Forensic pathologists' decisions are critical in police investigations and court proceedings as they determine whether an unnatural death of a young child was an accident or homicide. Does cognitive bias affect forensic pathologists' decision-making? To address this question, we examined all death certificates issued during a 10-year period in the State of Nevada in the United States for children under the age of six. We also conducted an experiment with 133 forensic pathologists in which we tested whether knowledge of irrelevant non-medical information that should have no bearing on forensic pathologists' decisions influenced their manner of death determinations. The dataset of death certificates indicated that forensic pathologists were more likely to rule "homicide" rather than "accident" for deaths of Black children relative to White children. This may arise because the base-rate expectation creates an a priori cognitive bias to rule that Black children died as a result of homicide, which then perpetuates itself. Corroborating this explanation, the experimental data with the 133 forensic pathologists exhibited biased decisions when given identical medical information but different irrelevant non-medical information about the race of the child and who was the caregiver who brought them to the hospital. These findings together demonstrate how extraneous information can result in cognitive bias in forensic pathology decision-making.

摘要

法医病理学家的决策在警方调查和法庭诉讼中至关重要,因为他们决定幼儿的非自然死亡是意外还是凶杀。认知偏差是否会影响法医病理学家的决策?为了解决这个问题,我们检查了美国内华达州在 10 年内为 6 岁以下儿童签发的所有死亡证明。我们还对 133 名法医病理学家进行了一项实验,测试了他们是否了解与法医病理学家决策无关的、不应影响其死因判断的无关非医学信息,这些信息是否会影响他们的判断。死亡证明数据集表明,法医病理学家更有可能将黑人儿童的死亡判定为“凶杀”,而不是“意外”,而白人儿童的死亡则更有可能被判定为“意外”。这可能是因为基础比率的预期会产生一种先验的认知偏差,即黑人儿童是死于凶杀,而这种偏见会自我延续。通过对 133 名法医病理学家的实验数据的印证,当他们获得相同的医学信息,但不同的关于儿童种族和带他们去医院的照顾者的无关非医学信息时,他们的决策表现出了有偏差。这些发现共同表明,额外的信息如何导致法医病理学决策中的认知偏差。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de10/8451910/f024a51f80c6/JFO-66-1751-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de10/8451910/ae5086b106b2/JFO-66-1751-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de10/8451910/be95ca3be337/JFO-66-1751-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de10/8451910/f024a51f80c6/JFO-66-1751-g003.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de10/8451910/ae5086b106b2/JFO-66-1751-g002.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de10/8451910/be95ca3be337/JFO-66-1751-g001.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/de10/8451910/f024a51f80c6/JFO-66-1751-g003.jpg

相似文献

1
Cognitive bias in forensic pathology decisions.法医学决策中的认知偏差。
J Forensic Sci. 2021 Sep;66(5):1751-1757. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14697. Epub 2021 Feb 20.
2
Contextual bias in forensic toxicology decisions: A follow-up empirical study from China.法庭毒理学决策中的语境偏差:来自中国的后续实证研究。
J Forensic Sci. 2024 Jul;69(4):1400-1406. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.15520. Epub 2024 Apr 3.
3
Accidental Trauma Mimicking Homicidal Violence.模仿杀人暴力的意外创伤。
J Forensic Sci. 2016 Sep;61(5):1250-6. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.13113. Epub 2016 Apr 28.
4
Assessing Cognitive Bias in Forensic Decisions: A Review and Outlook.评估法医决策中的认知偏差:综述与展望
J Forensic Sci. 2020 Mar;65(2):354-360. doi: 10.1111/1556-4029.14220. Epub 2019 Nov 6.
5
A prospective study about the discrepancy between postmortem inspections conducted by emergency physicians and forensic pathologists.一项关于急诊医师和法医病理学家进行的尸检差异的前瞻性研究。
J Forensic Leg Med. 2020 Jul;73:101997. doi: 10.1016/j.jflm.2020.101997. Epub 2020 Jun 2.
6
Amended cause and manner of death certification: a six-year review of the New Mexico experience.修订后的死因及死亡方式证明:对新墨西哥州六年经验的回顾
J Forensic Sci. 2006 May;51(3):651-6. doi: 10.1111/j.1556-4029.2006.00128.x.
7
Contextual bias on decision-making in forensic toxicology: First survey from China.法医毒理学决策中的情境偏差:来自中国的首次调查
Forensic Sci Int. 2022 Apr;333:111232. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2022.111232. Epub 2022 Feb 11.
8
Contextual bias by Forensic Document Examination trainees: An empirical study from China.法医文件检验学员的情境偏差:来自中国的实证研究。
Sci Justice. 2024 Jul;64(4):360-366. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2024.05.002. Epub 2024 May 11.
9
DNA testing in homicide investigations.杀人案件调查中的DNA检测
Med Sci Law. 2017 Oct;57(4):179-191. doi: 10.1177/0025802417721790. Epub 2017 Aug 4.
10
Cost-consequence analysis of cause of death investigation in Finland and in Denmark.芬兰和丹麦死因调查的成本-后果分析。
Forensic Sci Int. 2014 Dec;245:133-42. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2014.10.032. Epub 2014 Oct 31.

引用本文的文献

1
Cognitive Bias Affects Perception and Decision-Making in Simulated Facial Recognition Searches.认知偏差影响模拟面部识别搜索中的感知与决策。
Behav Sci (Basel). 2025 Aug 12;15(8):1094. doi: 10.3390/bs15081094.
2
Biased and Biasing: The Hidden Bias Cascade and Bias Snowball Effects.偏见与产生偏见:隐藏的偏见级联效应和偏见雪球效应。
Behav Sci (Basel). 2025 Apr 8;15(4):490. doi: 10.3390/bs15040490.
3
Mortality Classification for Deaths With Nonfirearm Force by Police, 2012-2021.2012 - 2021年警察使用非枪支武力导致死亡的死亡率分类

本文引用的文献

1
Comment on "Cognitive and Human Factors in Expert Decision Making: Six Fallacies and the Eight Sources of Bias".关于《专家决策中的认知与人为因素:六个谬误及八种偏差来源》的评论
Anal Chem. 2020 Sep 15;92(18):12725-12726. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c03002. Epub 2020 Aug 28.
2
Cognitive biases in the peer review of bullet and cartridge case comparison casework: A field study.子弹和弹壳比对案件同行评审中的认知偏差:一项实地研究。
Sci Justice. 2020 Jul;60(4):337-346. doi: 10.1016/j.scijus.2020.01.005. Epub 2020 Jan 28.
3
Time to look in the mirror.
JAMA Netw Open. 2025 Mar 3;8(3):e252371. doi: 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.2371.
4
The Effect of Targeted Memory Reactivation on Dogs' Visuospatial Memory.定向记忆再激活对犬类视觉空间记忆的影响。
eNeuro. 2025 Feb 11;12(2). doi: 10.1523/ENEURO.0304-20.2024. Print 2025 Feb.
5
Diagnostic Errors in Obstetric Morbidity and Mortality: Methods for and Challenges in Seeking Diagnostic Excellence.产科发病率和死亡率中的诊断错误:追求卓越诊断的方法与挑战
J Clin Med. 2024 Jul 20;13(14):4245. doi: 10.3390/jcm13144245.
6
Investigating identification disparities in forensic anthropology casework.探究法医人类学案件工作中的身份识别差异。
PLoS One. 2023 Nov 1;18(11):e0290302. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290302. eCollection 2023.
7
Camera footage and identification testimony undermine the availability of exculpatory alibi evidence.摄像证据和身份鉴定证词破坏了可作为不在场证明的证据的可用性。
PLoS One. 2023 Oct 26;18(10):e0289376. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289376. eCollection 2023.
8
Naturalizing unnatural death in Los Angeles County jails.使洛杉矶县监狱中的非自然死亡正常化。
Med Anthropol Q. 2024 Mar;38(1):6-23. doi: 10.1111/maq.12819. Epub 2023 Oct 18.
9
The scientific reinvention of forensic science.法医学的科学重塑。
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2023 Oct 10;120(41):e2301840120. doi: 10.1073/pnas.2301840120. Epub 2023 Oct 2.
10
A model of evaluative opinion to encourage greater transparency and justification of interpretation in postmortem forensic toxicology.评估性意见模型,旨在提高死后法医毒理学中解释的透明度和正当性。
J Anal Toxicol. 2023 Sep 15;47(7):563-573. doi: 10.1093/jat/bkad055.
是时候照照镜子了。
Science. 2020 Jun 12;368(6496):1161. doi: 10.1126/science.abd1896. Epub 2020 Jun 8.
4
Cognitive and Human Factors in Expert Decision Making: Six Fallacies and the Eight Sources of Bias.专家决策中的认知和人为因素:六个谬论和八个偏见来源。
Anal Chem. 2020 Jun 16;92(12):7998-8004. doi: 10.1021/acs.analchem.0c00704. Epub 2020 Jun 8.
5
Cognitive bias research in forensic science: A systematic review.法医学中的认知偏差研究:一项系统综述。
Forensic Sci Int. 2019 Apr;297:35-46. doi: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2019.01.016. Epub 2019 Jan 22.
6
Biases in forensic experts.法医专家中的偏见。
Science. 2018 Apr 20;360(6386):243. doi: 10.1126/science.aat8443.
7
Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review.医疗保健专业人员中的隐性偏见:一项系统综述。
BMC Med Ethics. 2017 Mar 1;18(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s12910-017-0179-8.
8
Deaths Due to Use of Lethal Force by Law Enforcement: Findings From the National Violent Death Reporting System, 17 U.S. States, 2009-2012.执法人员使用致命武力导致的死亡:2009 - 2012年美国17个州的国家暴力死亡报告系统的调查结果
Am J Prev Med. 2016 Nov;51(5 Suppl 3):S173-S187. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2016.08.027.
9
Racial Disparities in Pain Management of Children With Appendicitis in Emergency Departments.急诊科阑尾炎患儿疼痛管理中的种族差异
JAMA Pediatr. 2015 Nov;169(11):996-1002. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.1915.
10
Physicians and implicit bias: how doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities.医生与隐性偏见:医生如何在不经意间使医疗保健差异永久化。
J Gen Intern Med. 2013 Nov;28(11):1504-10. doi: 10.1007/s11606-013-2441-1. Epub 2013 Apr 11.