This study demonstrates the feasibility of a metacognitive confidence calibration tool (MCC) to assess and promote novices in the learning of diagnostic reasoning and treatment decisions on patient care in real time during high-fidelity patient simulations while comparing confidence and accuracy data and identifying students’ scientific misconceptions. Results revealed the presence of overconfidence bias, overtreatment, and the misconception of metabolic acidosis as the cause of the patient’s problems rather than a consequence of untreated diabetes mellitus.

Using natural language processing tools, we investigate the semantic differences in medical guidelines for three decision problems: breast cancer screening, lower back pain and hypertension management. The recommendation differences may cause undue variability in patient treatments and outcomes. Therefore, having a better understanding of their causes can contribute to a discussion on possible remedies. We show that these differences in recommendations are highly correlated with the knowledge brought to the problem by different medical societies, as reflected in the conceptual vocabularies used by the different groups of authors. While this article is a case study using three sets of guidelines, the proposed methodology is broadly applicable. Technically, our method combines word embeddings and a novel graph-based similarity model for comparing collections of documents. For our main case study, we use the CDC summaries of the recommendations (very short documents) and full (long) texts of guidelines represented as bags of concepts. For the other case studies, we compare the full text of guidelines with their abstracts and tables, summarizing the differences between recommendations. The proposed approach is evaluated using different language models and different distance measures. In all the experiments, the results are highly statistically significant. We discuss the significance of the results, their possible extensions, and connections to other domains of knowledge. We conclude that automated methods, although not perfect, can be applicable to conceptual comparisons of different medical guidelines and can enable their analysis at scale.

We introduce a new formal model -- based on the mathematical construct of sheaves -- for representing contradictory information in textual sources. This model has the advantage of letting us (a) identify the causes of the inconsistency; (b) measure how strong it is; (c) and do something about it, e.g. suggest ways to reconcile inconsistent advice. This model naturally represents the distinction between contradictions and disagreements. It is based on the idea of representing natural language sentences as formulas with parameters sitting on lattices, creating partial orders based on predicates shared by theories, and building sheaves on these partial orders with products of lattices as stalks. Degrees of disagreement are measured by the existence of global and local sections. Limitations of the sheaf approach and connections to recent work in natural language processing, as well as the topics of contextuality in physics, data fusion, topological data analysis and epistemology are also discussed.

We introduce a formal distinction between contradictions and disagreements in natural language texts, motivated by the need to formally reason about contradictory medical guidelines. This is a novel and potentially very useful distinction, and has not been discussed so far in NLP and logic. We also describe a NLP system capable of automated finding contradictory medical guidelines; the system uses a combination of text analysis and information retrieval modules. We also report positive evaluation results on a small corpus of contradictory medical recommendations.