The Gaps in Specialists’ Diagnoses
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Over-specialized knowledge is sometimes a double-edged sword during diagnosis, limiting diagnostic possibilities and leading to neglect of factors outside of the specialty, especially in complex symptom presentations.
“over-specialized knowledge is sometimes a double-edged sword during diagnosis, limiting diagnostic possibilities and leading to neglect of factors outside of the specialty, especially in complex symptom presentations [88].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [88]
This can result in unnecessary tests, delays, and misdiagnoses as patients are referred between specialists without a unified approach to diagnosis.
“This can result in unnecessary tests, delays, and misdiagnoses as patients are referred between specialists without a unified approach to diagnosis [88,274].”
From Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors (2026) · cites this paper as [88]
Cites
Friedman, C. P., Gatti, G. G., Franz, T. M., Murphy, G. C., Wolf, F. M., Heckerling, P. S., Fine, P. L., Miller, T. M., & Elstein, A. S. (2005) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1111/j.1525-1497.2005.30145.x · Cited by 187 · see citing works
Bell, S. K., White, A. A., Yi, J. C., Yi-Frazier, J. P., & Gallagher, T. H. (2017) · Journal of Patient Safety · doi:10.1097/pts.0000000000000153 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Toward Safer Diagnoses: A SEIPS-Based Narrative Review of Diagnostic Errors
Yen, C., Epling, J. W., Rockwell, M., & Vaughn-Cooke, M. (2026) · Diagnostics · doi:10.3390/diagnostics16020347 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
- Authors
- Scott, I. A., & Campbell, D. A.
- Affiliations
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Monash Health (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Scott, Ian A
- Venue
- Medical Journal of Australia
- Publisher
- AMPCo
- Published
- 2018-03
- Volume
- 208
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 196-197
- ISSN
- 0025-729X (ISSN-L)
- 1326-5377
- OpenAlex
- W2792892838
- Cited by
- 12
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 1.14
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- The Medical Journal of Australia (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Imaging › Radiology practices and education
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Primary Care and Health Outcomes
- Keywords
- diagnostic errors, diagnostic accuracy
- MeSH terms
- Clinical Competence, Diagnosis, Diagnostic Errors, Humans, Specialization
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
