The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cognitive Science in Medicine: Biomedical Modeling
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“The ability to blend formal and informal theories effectively at all stages of interventions is an important applied skill that develops as a practitioner moves from novice to expert.19 61”
From Demystifying theory and its use in improvement (2015) · cites this paper as [61]
Citations
Cited by
Research in clinical reasoning: past history and current trends
Norman, G. (2005) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2005.02127.x · Cited by 1,018
Demystifying theory and its use in improvement
Davidoff, F., Dixon-Woods, M., Leviton, L., & Michie, S. (2015) · BMJ Quality & Safety · doi:10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003627 · Cited by 714
Miller, R. A. (1994) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/jamia.1994.95236141 · Cited by 458
Scripts and clinical reasoning
Charlin, B., Boshuizen, H. P. A., Custers, E. J., & Feltovich, P. J. (2007) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02924.x · Cited by 440
Non‐analytical models of clinical reasoning: the role of experience
Norman, G., Young, M., & Brooks, L. (2007) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2923.2007.02914.x · Cited by 401
Metadata
- Venue
- The MIT Press eBooks
- Publisher
- The MIT Press
- Published
- 1989
- OpenAlex
- W4240532149
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 7.29
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- The MIT Press eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Family Practice › Clinical Reasoning and Diagnostic Skills
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Medicine, History, and Philosophy
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Cognitive Science and Education Research
- Keywords
- cognitive science, medicine, clinical decision-making, medical knowledge
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: Cognitive Science in Medicine: Biomedical Modeling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.7551/mitpress/1878.001.0001
- The paper
- Cognitive Science in Medicine: Biomedical Modeling. (1989). The MIT Press eBooks. https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/1878.001.0001
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.
