The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Availability, Wishful Thinking, and Physicians' Diagnostic Judgments for Patients with Suspected Bacteremia
Abstract
A prospective cohort study was done to assess the effects of value bias and the inappropriate use of the availability heuristic on physicians' judgments of the probability of bacteremia. Subjects of the study were 227 medical inpatients in a university hospital who had blood cultures done. Estimates of the probabilities that individual patients would have positive blood cultures were collected from the house officers who ordered the cultures. Clinical data and culture results were also obtained. Based on the data the authors calculated "value varia bles," reflecting doctors' assessments of the risks that individual patients would die in the hospital if they were to have bacteremia. "Recalled experience variables" reflected the doctors' recollections of recent experiences with patients with bacteremia. The physicians significantly overestimated the likelihood of bacteremia for most of their patients. Their ROC curve for this diagnosis showed moderate discriminating ability (area = 0.687, SE = 0.073). Two recalled experience variables were significantly associated with the physicians' prob ability estimates. The value variables were significantly inversely associated with them. These relationships were independent of several clinical variables and measures of disease severity. The physicians' intuitive diagnostic judgments were thus influenced by the availability heu ristic and by wishful thinking, a form of the value bias. The availability heuristic may mislead physicians by causing them to believe that random variations in the prevalence of a non- epidemic disease represent real trends. Wishful thinking may lead physicians to underes timate the likelihood of a disease for patients most at risk for its consequences. Teaching physicians to develop better judgmental strategies may improve the quality of their judgments and hence their patient care. Key words: diagnosis; probability; septicemia; availability heu ristic ; value bias. (Med Decis Making 1991;11:159-168)
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
(1982) · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511809477 · Cited by 8,240
Cited by
Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgment.
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.004 · Cited by 3,476
Slovic, P., Finucane, M., Peters, E., & MacGregor, D. G. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.025 · Cited by 2,349
Support theory: a nonextensional representation of subjective probability
Tversky, A., & Koehler, D. J. (1994) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.101.4.547 · Cited by 1,167
Dunning, D., Meyerowitz, J. A., & Holzberg, A. D. (2002) · Heuristics and Biases · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511808098.020 · Cited by 678
Unpacking, repacking, and anchoring: Advances in support theory.
Rottenstreich, Y., & Tversky, A. (1997) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.104.2.406 · Cited by 425
Metadata
- Authors
- Poses, R. M., & Anthony, M.
- Venue
- Medical Decision Making
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 1991-08
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 159-168
- ISSN
- 0272-989X (ISSN-L)
- 1552-681X
- OpenAlex
- W2137462785
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 4.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Availability, Wishful Thinking, and Physicians' Diagnostic Judgments for Patients with Suspected Bacteremia. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/0272989x9101100303
- The paper
- Poses, R. M., & Anthony, M. (1991). Availability, Wishful Thinking, and Physicians' Diagnostic Judgments for Patients with Suspected Bacteremia. Medical Decision Making. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989x9101100303
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.