Editorial: Highlights in psychology: cognitive bias
Open accessAbstract
Editorial on the Research Topic Highlights in psychology: cognitive bias
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
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.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Experienced specialists may be subject to the 'curse of knowledge' bias, a common cognitive bias where experts, because of their familiarity with a topic, have difficulty recognizing information gaps and identifying the needs of less specialized clinicians.
“Third, experienced specialists may be subject to the ‘curse of knowledge’ bias, a common cognitive bias where experts, because of their familiarity with a topic, have difficulty recognizing information gaps and identifying the needs of less specialized clinicians.29”
From Large Language Model–Generated Electronic Consultations: A Blinded Comparative Study of OpenEvidence and Gastroenterologist Electronic Consultations (2026) · cites this paper as [29]
Split into 2 atoms — 0 confirmed, 2 partially supported, 0 disputed, 0 misattributed, 0 unverifiable. Expand the claim to see per-atom verdicts.
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Garety P.A. Bebbington P. Fowler D. Freeman D. Kuipers E. (2007). Implications for neurobiological research of cognitive models of psychosis: a theoretical paper. Psychol. Med. 37, 1377– 1391. 10.1017/S003329170700013X 17335638 · DOI · Paper page
- Kahneman D. Slovic P. Tversky A. (eds.). (1982). Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 17835457
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Stephenson, C. R., Varayil, J. E., Salonen, B. R., Wight, E. C., Sang, P. D., Ghosh, A. K., Shung, D. L., Croghan, I. T., Schroeder, D. R., & Hurt, R. T. (2026) · Mayo Clinic Proceedings: Digital Health · doi:10.1016/j.mcpdig.2026.100404
- Authors
- Da Silva, S., Gupta, R., & Monzani, D.
- Affiliations
- Indian Institute of Technology Bombay (IN)
- University of Palermo (IT)
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2023-07-03
- Volume
- 14
- Pages
- 1242809-1242809
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC10352116
- OpenAlex
- W4382987147
- Cited by
- 29
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 19 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Frontiers in Psychology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Nova Science Publishers (Nova Science Publishers, Inc.) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
- Keywords
- cognitive biases
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
