Challenges in medical decision making and major cognitive errors in clinical reasoning: A historical perspective.
Keywords:
medical decision making, cognitive errors, methodological biases, differential diagnosis, history of medicine, medical humanities, heuristicsAbstract
Decision making in medicine is a difficult and complex process subject to several possible cognitive errors. General empirical knowledge and a number of scientific studies show that, when making clinical decisions, physicians often prefer cognitive processes called heuristics. Heuristics indicates a typology of informal reasoning frequently useful on practical grounds but potentially generative of a number of biases and limits deriving from an imperfect integration of personal professional experience with patient data and information. Possible cognitive errors emerging from the adoption of heuristics are numerous and, to a certain extent, codified.
In this contribution significant challenges of medical decision making and major cognitive errors are analyzed in a historical perspective. In the seventies the pioneering research of Kahneman and Tversky in the fields of heuristics and cognitive biases opened the way to a comprehensive analysis of the patterns of human judgment and the pathways of decision-making. A full comprehension of established risk factors for cognitive errors is a first mandatory step on the road of prevention and in the containment of such flaws, and this initial awareness should lead to the implementation of cognitive strategies targeted to the prophylaxis and reduction of these errors.
Taking into account the availability of current and future technological instruments functional for medical decision making, including artificial intelligence, the structural teaching of the correct and thoughtful adoption of such tools is called upon to become, with particular reference to the didactics of clinical reasoning, an integral part of modern medical education.
References
1. Conti AA, Gensini GF, Galanti G, Conti A. Decision making processes in sports and in medicine: refereeing the game. Clin J Sport Med 2010; 20(6): 402-4.
2. Christenson M, Shukla A, Patel JJ. Intensive Care Unit Decision-Making in Uncertain and Stressful Conditions Part 2: Cognitive Errors, Debiasing Strategies, and Enhancing Critical Thinking. Crit Care Clin 2022; 38(1): 89-101.
3. Conti AA, Conti A, Gensini GF, Medical decision making as a "historical" combination of art, statistics, experimentalism and evidence based practice. Vesalius 2010;16(1):19-23.
4. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science 1974;185(4157):1124-31.
5. Tversky A, Kahneman D. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981; 211(4481):453-8.
6. Schaller-Paule MA, Steinmetz H, Vollmer FS, Plesac M, Wicke F, Foerch C. Lessons in clinical reasoning - pitfalls, myths, and pearls: the contribution of faulty data gathering and synthesis to diagnostic error. Diagnosis (Berl) 2021;8(4):515-24.
7. Parvin TS. To err is human, but patient safety requires correcting medical errors. J Miss State Med Assoc 2004;45(8):239-40.
8. Redelmeier DA, Shafir E. Medical decision making in situations that offer multiple alternatives. JAMA 1995;273(4):302-5.
9. Mandell BF. Cognitive Errors in Clinical Decision Making. Merck Manual professional version. Merck & Co., Inc., Rahway, NJ, USA, 2025.
10. Restrepo D, Armstrong KA, Metlay JP. Annals Clinical Decision Making: Avoiding Cognitive Errors in Clinical Decision Making. Ann Intern Med 2020;172(11):747-51.
11. Bliss M. William Osler. A life in medicine. University of Toronto Press, Toronto (Canada), 1999.
12. Craxì L, Giardina S, Spagnolo AG. A return to humane medicine: Osler's legacy. Infez Med 2017;25(3):292-7.
13. Gupta A, Quinn M, Saint S, et al. The variability in how physicians think: a casebased diagnostic simulation exercise. Diagnosis (Berl) 2020;8(2):167-75.
14. Redelmeier DA, Shafir E, Aujla PS. The beguiling pursuit of more information. Med Decis Making 2001;21(5):376-81.
15. Conti AA. Historical evolution of the concept of health in Western medicine. Acta Biomed 2018;89(3):352-4.
16. Conti AA. Nobel Prizes in Medicine as an overview on XX and XXI centuries biomedicine and health sciences: historical and epistemological considerations. Acta Biomed 2020;91(4):e2020091.
17. Johal HK, Danbury C. Conflict before the courtroom: challenging cognitive biases in critical decision-making. J Med Ethics 2020;47(12):e36.
18. O'Sullivan ED, Schofield SJ. Cognitive bias in clinical medicine. J R Coll Physicians Edinb 2018;48(3):225-32.
19. Motterlini M, Crupi V. Decisioni mediche. Un punto di vista cognitivo. Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano, 2005.
20. Motterlini M. Trappole mentali. BUR, Milano, 2011.
21. Wilkinson I, Raine T, Wiles K, Hateley P, Kelly D, McGurgan I. Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine. Oxford University Press, Oxford (UK), 2024.
22. Ng IK, Goh WG, Nashi N, et al. Making better clinical decisions: How doctors can recognise and reduce bias and noise in medical practice. Ann Acad Med Singap 2025;54(5):310-3.
23. Hilliard AA, Weinberger SE, Tierney LM Jr, Midthun DE, Saint S. Clinical problem-solving. Occam's razor versus Saint's Triad. N Engl J Med 2004;350(6):599-603.
24. Espinoza-Vinces C, Martínez MC, Atorrasagasti-Villar A, Rodríguez MDMG, Ezpeleta D, Irimia P. Artificial intelligence in headache medicine: between automation and the doctor-patient relationship. A systematic review. J Headache Pain 2025;26(1):192.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 Andrea A. Conti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0) which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Transfer of Copyright and Permission to Reproduce Parts of Published Papers.
Authors retain the copyright for their published work. No formal permission will be required to reproduce parts (tables or illustrations) of published papers, provided the source is quoted appropriately and reproduction has no commercial intent. Reproductions with commercial intent will require written permission and payment of royalties.
How to Cite
