Suppr超能文献

加强重症监护病房的分析推理能力。

Enhancing Analytical Reasoning in the Intensive Care Unit.

机构信息

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Hub for Collaborative Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, 8th Floor, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA.

Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Hub for Collaborative Medicine, Medical College of Wisconsin, 8701 Watertown Plank Road, 8th Floor, Milwaukee, WI 53226, USA.

出版信息

Crit Care Clin. 2022 Jan;38(1):51-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ccc.2021.09.001.

Abstract

Clinical reasoning is prone to errors in judgment. Error is comprised of 2 components-bias and noise; each has an equally important role in the promulgation of error. Biases or systematic errors in reasoning are the product of misconceptions of probability and statistics. Biases arise because clinicians frequently rely on mental shortcuts or heuristics to make judgments. The most frequently used heuristics are representativeness, availability, and anchoring/adjustment which lead to the common biases of base rate neglect, misconceptions of regression, insensitivities to sample size, and fallacies of conjunctive, and disjunctive events. Bayesian reasoning is the framework within which posterior probabilities of events is identified. Familiarity with these mathematical concepts will likely enhance clinical reasoning. Noise is defined as inter or intraobserver variability in judgment that should be identical. Guidelines in medicine are a technique to reduce noise.

摘要

临床推理容易出现判断错误。错误由两个部分组成——偏差和噪声;两者在错误的传播中都起着同等重要的作用。推理中的偏差或系统误差是概率和统计学误解的产物。偏差的产生是因为临床医生经常依赖于思维捷径或启发式方法来进行判断。最常用的启发式方法是代表性、可得性和锚定/调整,这些方法导致了常见的偏差,如基本比率忽视、回归误解、对样本量不敏感以及合取和析取事件的谬误。贝叶斯推理是确定事件后验概率的框架。熟悉这些数学概念可能会增强临床推理。噪声是指判断中的个体内或个体间的变异性,这些变异性应该是相同的。医学指南是减少噪声的一种技术。

相似文献

1
Enhancing Analytical Reasoning in the Intensive Care Unit.
Crit Care Clin. 2022 Jan;38(1):51-67. doi: 10.1016/j.ccc.2021.09.001.
2
People's conditional probability judgments follow probability theory (plus noise).
Cogn Psychol. 2016 Sep;89:106-33. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2016.06.006. Epub 2016 Aug 26.
3
Surprisingly rational: probability theory plus noise explains biases in judgment.
Psychol Rev. 2014 Jul;121(3):463-80. doi: 10.1037/a0037010.
4
How experimental methods shaped views on human competence and rationality.
Psychol Bull. 2021 Jun;147(6):535-564. doi: 10.1037/bul0000324.
5
Heuristics and biases: selected errors in clinical reasoning.
Acad Med. 1999 Jul;74(7):791-4. doi: 10.1097/00001888-199907000-00012.
6
Estimation of post-test probabilities by residents: Bayesian reasoning versus heuristics?
Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2014 Aug;19(3):393-402. doi: 10.1007/s10459-013-9485-1. Epub 2014 Jan 22.
7
The development of the representativeness heuristic in young children.
J Exp Child Psychol. 2018 Oct;174:60-76. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2018.05.006. Epub 2018 Jun 15.
8
The rationality of informal argumentation: a Bayesian approach to reasoning fallacies.
Psychol Rev. 2007 Jul;114(3):704-32. doi: 10.1037/0033-295X.114.3.704.
9
The Bayesian sampler: Generic Bayesian inference causes incoherence in human probability judgments.
Psychol Rev. 2020 Oct;127(5):719-748. doi: 10.1037/rev0000190. Epub 2020 Mar 19.
10
Decision Making: Healthy Heuristics and Betraying Biases.
Crit Care Clin. 2022 Jan;38(1):37-49. doi: 10.1016/j.ccc.2021.07.002.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验