The Influence of Disease Severity of Preceding Clinical Cases on Pathologists' Medical Decision Making

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

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.

Exploring the medical decision-making patterns and influencing factors among the general Chinese public: a binary logistic regression analysis

OBJECTIVE

With the ongoing evolution of the healthcare system and shifts in cultural paradigms, there is a pressing need to delve into the medical decision-making behaviors of general Chinese public and understand their underlying motivations. This research seeks to elucidate the prevailing tendencies in these decision-making processes and to empirically validate the pivotal factors that shape their choices, offering valuable insights for healthcare policymakers and institutions.

METHOD

A comprehensive survey was administered to 2,696 Chinese residents to examine their medical decision-making patterns. These patterns were classified into two primary categories: Unilateral Decision-making (Doctor-dominant, Family-centric, and Patient-driven subtypes) and Collaborative Decision-making (Doctor-led, Doctor-Patient, Patient-Family, and Doctor-Patient-Family subtypes). Binary logistic regression analysis was employed to empirically pinpoint the significant factors influencing these decision-making frameworks.

RESULTS

The study's analysis reveals distinct preferences in medical decision-making among Chinese residents. In the Collaborative Decision-making category, chosen by 70.81% of participants, the subtypes are as follows: Doctor-led (29.90%), Doctor-Patient (13.54%), Patient-Family (2.93%), and Doctor-Patient-Family (24.44%). The Unilateral Decision-making, preferred by 29.19%, includes Doctor-dominant (23.22%), Family-centric (1.74%), and Patient-driven (4.23%) models. The preference for Collaborative Decision-making is associated with higher educational levels, specific marital statuses (particularly married but childless), and choices of rural residents' basic medical insurance or occupational basic medical insurance. In contrast, Unilateral Decision-making correlates with males, individuals with religious beliefs, certain occupational roles (like civil servants), and holders of commercial or publicly funded medical insurance.

CONCLUSION

This study elucidates the complex interplay of socio-cultural and individual determinants shaping medical decision-making in China. The findings reveal a marked inclination towards collaborative models, closely linked to educational level, marital status, and specific insurance types, reflecting an evolving trend towards participatory healthcare. Simultaneously, the persistence of unilateral models, influenced by gender, religious beliefs, and occupational roles, highlights the heterogeneity within Chinese healthcare preferences. These insights are crucial for policymakers and healthcare practitioners, underscoring the need for adaptable, culturally attuned healthcare frameworks that cater to this diversity, thereby enhancing patient engagement and healthcare efficacy.

Cognitive bias in pathology, as exemplified in dermatopathology

Cognitive bias refers to human thinking patterns, as well as pitfalls, that are reproducible. Importantly, cognitive bias is not intentionally discriminatory and is necessary to properly interpret the world around us, including microscopic slides. Thus, it is a useful exercise to examine cognitive bias in pathology, as exemplified in dermatopathology.

Effect of Prior Diagnoses on Dermatopathologists' Interpretations of Melanocytic Lesions: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Importance

Medical second opinions are common, although little is known about the best processes for obtaining them. This study assesses whether knowledge of a prior physician's diagnosis influences consulting physicians' diagnoses.

Objective

To measure the extent to which dermatopathologists' diagnoses are influenced by prior diagnostic information from another dermatopathologist.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Dermatopathologists were randomly assigned to interpret 1 slide set of 18 melanocytic skin biopsy specimens in 2 phases (5 slide sets totaling 90 cases). Phase 1 interpretations were conducted without prior diagnostic information. After a washout period of 12 or more months, dermatopathologists' phase 2 interpretations were conducted with their identical slide set; for a random subset of cases in phase 2, participants were shown prior diagnoses by other dermatopathologists that were either more or less severe than their own phase 1 diagnosis of the case. Using the Melanocytic Pathology Assessment Tool and Hierarchy for Diagnosis tool, cases ranged from class I (benign) to class V (≥pT1b invasive melanoma). Data collection took place from August 2018 to March 2021, and data analysis was performed from March to December 2021.

Intervention

Prior diagnoses were actual diagnoses from board-certified and/or fellowship-trained dermatopathologists. A prior diagnosis was always in a more severe or less severe diagnostic class than the participant's phase 1 interpretation; more or less severe was determined by the randomization scheme. In the control condition of no prior diagnostic information, the participants were told that a prior diagnosis was not available.

Main Outcomes and Measures

When exposure was to a prior diagnosis in a higher diagnostic class, the primary study outcome was whether a participant's diagnosis in phase 2 was in a higher diagnostic class than the participant's diagnosis in phase 1. When exposure was to a prior diagnosis in a lower diagnostic class, the primary study outcome was whether a participant's diagnosis in phase 2 was in a lower diagnostic class than the participant's diagnosis in phase 1. The effect of prior diagnostic information was measured using the relative risk (RR) of each outcome relative to the control condition of no prior diagnostic information, adjusted for the diagnostic class of the phase 1 diagnosis. Prior to data collection, it was hypothesized that participants would be swayed in the direction of prior diagnostic information.

Results

A total of 149 dermatopathologists (median [range] age, 47 years [34-76] years; 101 [68%] were male) provided 5322 interpretations of study cases. Participants were more likely to increase the severity of their diagnosis when the prior diagnosis was of greater severity compared with when no prior diagnosis was provided (RR, 1.52; 95% CI, 1.34-1.73); likewise, participants gave less severe diagnoses when prior diagnoses were of lesser severity (RR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.19-1.59). Trends were similar among dermatopathologists who had previously stated they were "not at all influenced" by prior diagnoses. Prior diagnoses also swayed dermatopathologists away from correct diagnoses.

Conclusions and Relevance

In this randomized controlled trial, despite the preference of most dermatopathologists to receive prior diagnoses when providing second opinions, this information swayed them away from a correct diagnosis to an incorrect diagnosis.

Opinion on Current Use of Non-Blinded Versus Blinded Histopathologic Evaluation in Animal Toxicity Studies

The Society of Toxicologic Pathology (STP) explored current institutional practices for selecting between non-blinded versus blinded histopathologic evaluation during Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)-compliant, regulatory-type animal toxicity studies using a multi-question survey and STP-wide discussion (held at the 2019 STP annual meeting). Survey responses were received from 107 individuals representing 83 institutions that collectively employ 589 toxicologic pathologists. Most responses came from industry (N = 46, mainly biopharmaceutical or contract research organizations) and consultants (N = 24). For GLP-compliant animal toxicity studies, histopathologic evaluation usually involves initial (primary) non-blinded analysis, with post hoc informal blinded re-examination at the study pathologist's discretion to confirm subtle findings or establish thresholds. Initial blinded histopathologic evaluation sometimes is chosen by study pathologists to test formal hypotheses and/or by sponsors to address non-pathologist expectations about histopathology data objectivity. Current practice is that a blinded histopathologic evaluation is documented only if formal blinding (ie, using slides with coded labels) is employed, using simple statements without detailed methodology in the study protocol (or an amendment) and/or pathology report. Blinding is not an appropriate strategy for the initial histopathologic evaluation performed during pathology peer reviews of GLP-compliant animal toxicity studies. [Box: see text].

Digital Microscopy, Image Analysis, and Virtual Slide Repository

Advancements in technology and digitization have ushered in novel ways of enhancing tissue-based research via digital microscopy and image analysis. Whole slide imaging scanners enable digitization of histology slides to be stored in virtual slide repositories and to be viewed via computers instead of microscopes. Easier and faster sharing of histologic images for teaching and consultation, improved storage and preservation of quality of stained slides, and annotation of features of interest in the digital slides are just a few of the advantages of this technology. Combined with the development of software for digital image analysis, digital slides further pave the way for the development of tools that extract quantitative data from tissue-based studies. This review introduces digital microscopy and pathology, and addresses technical and scientific considerations in slide scanning, quantitative image analysis, and slide repositories. It also highlights the current state of the technology and factors that need to be taken into account to insure optimal utility, including preanalytical considerations and the importance of involving a pathologist in all major steps along the digital microscopy and pathology workflow.

Blinding or information control in diagnosis: could it reduce errors in clinical decision-making?

Background Clinical medicine has long recognized the potential for cognitive bias in the development of new treatments, and in response developed a tradition of blinding both clinicians and patients to address this specific concern. Although cognitive biases have been shown to exist which impact the accuracy of clinical diagnosis, blinding the diagnostician to potentially misleading information has received little attention as a possible solution. Recently, within the forensic sciences, the control of contextual information (i.e. information apart from the objective test results) has been studied as a technique to reduce errors. We consider the applicability of this technique to clinical medicine. Content This article briefly describes the empirical research examining cognitive biases arising from context which impact clinical diagnosis. We then review the recent awakening of forensic sciences to the serious effects of misleading information. Comparing the approaches, we discuss whether blinding to contextual information might (and in what circumstances) reduce clinical errors. Summary and outlook Substantial research indicates contextual information plays a significant role in diagnostic error and conclusions across several medical specialties. The forensic sciences may provide a useful model for the control of potentially misleading information in diagnosis. A conceptual analog of the forensic blinding process (the "agnostic" first reading) may be applicable to diagnostic investigations such as imaging, microscopic tissue examinations and waveform recognition. An "agnostic" approach, where the first reading occurs with minimal clinical referral information, but is followed by incorporation of the clinical history and reinterpretation, has the potential to reduce errors.

Modeling sequential context effects in diagnostic interpretation of screening mammograms

Prior research has shown that physicians’ medical decisions can be influenced by sequential context, particularly in cases where successive stimuli exhibit similar characteristics when analyzing medical images. This type of systematic error is known to psychophysicists as sequential context effect as it indicates that judgments are influenced by features of and decisions about the preceding case in the sequence of examined cases, rather than being based solely on the peculiarities unique to the present case. We determine if radiologists experience some form of context bias, using screening mammography as the use case. To this end, we explore correlations between previous perceptual behavior and diagnostic decisions and current decisions. We hypothesize that a radiologist’s visual search pattern and diagnostic decisions in previous cases are predictive of the radiologist’s current diagnostic decisions. To test our hypothesis, we tasked 10 radiologists of varied experience to conduct blind reviews of 100 four-view screening mammograms. Eye-tracking data and diagnostic decisions were collected from each radiologist under conditions mimicking clinical practice. Perceptual behavior was quantified using the fractal dimension of gaze scanpath, which was computed using the Minkowski–Bouligand box-counting method. To test the effect of previous behavior and decisions, we conducted a multifactor fixed-effects ANOVA. Further, to examine the predictive value of previous perceptual behavior and decisions, we trained and evaluated a predictive model for radiologists’ current diagnostic decisions. ANOVA tests showed that previous visual behavior, characterized by fractal analysis, previous diagnostic decisions, and image characteristics of previous cases are significant predictors of current diagnostic decisions. Additionally, predictive modeling of diagnostic decisions showed an overall improvement in prediction error when the model is trained on additional information about previous perceptual behavior and diagnostic decisions.

The Gold Standard Paradox in Digital Image Analysis: Manual Versus Automated Scoring as Ground Truth

CONTEXT

- Novel therapeutics often target complex cellular mechanisms. Increasingly, quantitative methods like digital tissue image analysis (tIA) are required to evaluate correspondingly complex biomarkers to elucidate subtle phenotypes that can inform treatment decisions with these targeted therapies. These tIA systems need a gold standard, or reference method, to establish analytical validity. Conventional, subjective histopathologic scores assigned by an experienced pathologist are the gold standard in anatomic pathology and are an attractive reference method. The pathologist's score can establish the ground truth to assess a tIA solution's analytical performance. The paradox of this validation strategy, however, is that tIA is often used to assist pathologists to score complex biomarkers because it is more objective and reproducible than manual evaluation alone by overcoming known biases in a human's visual evaluation of tissue, and because it can generate endpoints that cannot be generated by a human observer.

OBJECTIVE

- To discuss common visual and cognitive traps known in traditional pathology-based scoring paradigms that may impact characterization of tIA-assisted scoring accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity.

DATA SOURCES

- This manuscript reviews the current literature from the past decades available for traditional subjective pathology scoring paradigms and known cognitive and visual traps relevant to these scoring paradigms.

CONCLUSIONS

- Awareness of the gold standard paradox is necessary when using traditional pathologist scores to analytically validate a tIA tool because image analysis is used specifically to overcome known sources of bias in visual assessment of tissue sections.