Understanding the impact of clinical findings in discriminating between possible causes of a patient’s presentation is essential in clinical judgment. A balance beam is a natural physical analogue that can accurately represent the combination of several pieces of evidence with varying ability to discriminate between disease hypotheses. Calculation of Bayes’ theorem using log(posterior odds) as a function of log(prior odds) and the logarithms of the evidence’s likelihood ratios maps onto the physical forces affecting objects placed on a balance beam. We describe the rules governing the functioning of tokens representing clinical findings in the comparison of 2 competing diseases. The likelihood ratios corresponding to positive (LR+) or negative (LR−) observations for each symptom determine the lateral position at which the symptom’s token is placed on the beam, using a weight if the finding is present and a helium balloon if it is absent. We discuss how a balance beam could represent concepts of dynamic specificity (due to changes in competitor diseases’ probabilities) and dynamic sensitivity (due to class-conditional independence). Utility-based thresholds for acting on a diagnosis could be represented by moving the balance beam’s fulcrum. It is suggested that a balance beam can be a useful aid for students learning clinical diagnosis, allowing them to build on existing intuitive understanding to develop an appreciation of how evidence combines to influence degree of belief. The balance beam could also facilitate exploration of the potential impact of available questions or investigations.
LaCombeMA. On bedside teaching. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(3):217–20.
2.
HammRMBeasleyWHJohnsonWJ. A balance beam aid for instruction in clinical diagnostic reasoning. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(7):854–862.
3.
MartinAWBrownRV. Analog devices for teaching decision skills to adolescents. In: BaronJBrownRV, eds. Teaching Decision Making to Adolescents. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1991. p 207–35.
4.
ShanteauJ. The Concept of Weight in Judgment and Decision Making: A Review and Some Unifying Proposals. Technical Report No. 228. Boulder: University of Colorado at Boulder, Center for Research on Judgment and Policy;1980.
5.
NelsonJD. Towards a rational theory of human information acquisition. In: OaksfordMChaterN, eds. The Probabilistic Mind: Prospects for Rational Models of Cognition. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2008. p 142–63.
6.
Van den EndeJBisoffiZVan PuymbroekH. Bridging the gap between clinical practice and diagnostic clinical epidemiology: pilot experiences with a didactic model based on a logarithmic scale. J Eval Clin Pract. 2007;13(3):374–80.
7.
MoreiraJBisoffiZNarvaezAVan den EndeJ. Bayesian clinical reasoning: does intuitive estimation of likelihood ratios on an ordinal scale outperform estimation of sensitivities and specificities?J Eval Clin Pract. 2008;14(5):934–940.
8.
LedleyRSLustedLB. Reasoning foundations of medical diagnosis. Science. 1959;130:9–21.
9.
RudolphJWMorrisonJBCarrollJS. The dynamics of action-oriented problem solving: Linking interpretation and choice. Acad Manage Rev. 2009;34(4):733–56.
10.
PapaFJOglesbyMWAldrichDGSchallerFCipherDJ. Improving diagnostic capabilities of medical students via application of cognitive sciences derived learning principles. Med Educ. 2007;41:419–25.
11.
TuckerPCandlerCHammRMSmithEMHudsonJC. Assessing changes in medical student attitudes toward non-traditional human sexual behaviors using a confidential audience response system. Sex Educ. 2010;10(1):37–45.
12.
RansohoffDFFeinsteinAR. Problems of spectrum and bias in evaluating the efficacy of diagnostic tests. N Engl J Med. 1978;299(17):926–30.
13.
Van den EndeJBlotKKestensLVan GompelAVan den EndenE. Kabisa: an interactive computer-assisted training program for tropical diseases. Med Educ. 1997;31(3):202–9.
14.
HammRM. Dynamic sensitivity and specificity in clinical diagnosis. Med Decis Making. 2008;28(1):E97.
15.
FrybackDG. Bayes’ theorem and conditional nonindependence of data in medical diagnosis. Comput Biomed Res. 1978;11(5):423–34.
16.
WeintraubWSMadeiraSWJrBodenheimerMM. Critical analysis of the application of Bayes’ theorem to sequential testing in the noninvasive diagnosis of coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol. 1984;54(1):43–9.
17.
JonesRHMcClatcheyMW. Beyond sensitivity, specificity and statistical independence. Stat Med. 1988;7(12):1289–95.
18.
HandDJYuK. Idiot’s Bayes—not so stupid after all?Int Stat Rev. 2001;69:385–98.
19.
RennieJDMShihLTeevanJKargerDR. Tackling the poor assumptions of naive Bayes text classifiers. Proceedings of the Twentieth International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-2003), Washington, DC, 2003.
20.
ZhangH. The optimality of naive Bayes. In: BarrVMarkovZ, eds. Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Florida Artificial Intelligence Research Society Conference. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press; 2004.
21.
McCallumANigamK, eds. A Comparison of Event Models for Naive Bayes Text Classification. Technical Report WS-98-05. AAAI/ICML=98 Workshop on Learning for Text Categorization. Palo Alto, CA: AAAI Press; 1998.
22.
AlemiFToriiMAthertonMJPattieDCCoxKL. Bayesian processing of context-dependent text: reasons for appointments can improve detection of influenza. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(2):E1–9.
23.
Regnier-CoudertOMcCallJLothianRLamTMcClintonSN’DowJ. Machine learning for improved pathological staging of prostate cancer: a performance comparison on a range of classifiers. Artif Intell Med. 2012;55(1):25–35.
24.
EdwardsW. N = 1: diagnosis in unique cases. In: JacquezJ, ed. Computer Diagnosis and Diagnostic Methods. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas; 1972. p. 139–51.
25.
ElieCCosteJ, French Society of Clinical Cytology Study G. A methodological framework to distinguish spectrum effects from spectrum biases and to assess diagnostic and screening test accuracy for patient populations: application to the Papanicolaou cervical cancer smear test. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8:7.
26.
LachsMSNachamkinIEdelsteinPHGoldmanJFeinsteinARSchwartzJS. Spectrum bias in the evaluation of diagnostic tests: lessons from the rapid dipstick test for urinary tract infection. Ann Intern Med. 1992;117(2):135–40.
27.
GoehringCPerrierAMorabiaA. Spectrum bias: a quantitative and graphical analysis of the variability of medical diagnostic test performance. Stat Med. 2004;23(1):125–35.
28.
PaukerSGKassirerJP. Therapeutic decision making: a cost-benefit analysis. N Engl J Med. 1975;293(5):229–34.
29.
SwetsJADawesRMMonahanJ. Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychol Science in the Public Interest. 2000;1(1):1–25.
30.
MederBNelsonJD. Information search with situation-specific reward functions. Judgment and Decision Making. 2012;7(2):119–48.
31.
BasingaPMoreiraJBisoffiZBisigBVan den EndeJ. Why are clinicians reluctant to treat smear-negative tuberculosis? An inquiry about treatment thresholds in Rwanda. Med Decis Making. 2007;27(1):53–60.
32.
BisigBMoreiraJCombesM. Does introduction of thresholds in decision aids benefit the patient? Comparison between findings-based and threshold-based diagnostic decision aids. Med Decis Making. 2012;32(6):E16–34.
DemouginDFluetC. Preponderance of evidence. Eur Econ Rev. 2006;50:963–76.
35.
PineKJMesserDJ. The effect of explaining another’s actions on children’s implicit theories of balance. Cognition and Instruction. 2000;18:35–51.
36.
SieglerRSRichardsD. Development of time, speed, and distance concepts. Dev Psychol. 1979;15:288–98.
37.
JansenBRvan der MaasHL. The development of children’s rule use on the balance scale task. J Exp Child Psychol. 2002;81(4):383–416.
38.
ArielyD. Seeing sets: representation by statistical properties. Psychol Sci. 2001;12(2):157–62.
39.
AlvarezGAOlivaA. The representation of simple ensemble visual features outside the focus of attention. Psychol Sci. 2008;19(4):392–98.
40.
HamrickJBattagliaPWTenenbaumJB. Internal physics models guide probabilistic judgments about object dynamics. 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society;
2011; Boston, MA.
41.
MarcusGFDavisE. How robust are probabilistic models of higher-level cognition?Psychol Sci. 2013;24(12):2351–60.
42.
GuillotAChampelySChristophe BatierCThirietPColletC. Relationship between spatial abilities, mental rotation and functional anatomy learning. Adv Health Sci Educ. 2007;12:491–507.
43.
BorghiAMBonfiglioliCLugliLRicciardelliPRubichiSNicolettiR. Visual hand primes and manipulable objects. In: BaraBBarsalouLBucciarelliB, eds. COGSCI2005: XXVII Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2005. p 322–7.
44.
SedlmeierP. Improving Statistical Reasoning: Theoretical Models and Practical Implications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 1999.
45.
WolfeCRFisherCRReynaVFHuX. Improving internal consistency in conditional probability estimation with an intelligent tutoring system and web-based tutorials. Int J Internet Sci. 2012;7:38–54.
46.
KahnemanDTverskyA. The simulation heuristic. In: KahnemanDSlovicPTverskyA, eds. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. New York: Cambridge University Press; 1982. p 201–8.
47.
Johnson-LairdPNLegrenziPGirottoVLegrenziMSCaverniJP. Naive probability: a mental model theory of extensional reasoning. Psychol Rev. 1999;106(1):62–88.
48.
HammRM. Moment by moment variation in experts’ analytic and intuitive cognitive activity. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics. 1988;18:757–76.
49.
WolfeCR. Information seeking on Bayesian conditional probability problems: a fuzzy-trace theory account. J Behav Decis Making. 1995;8:85–108.
50.
WoolleyAKostopoulouO. Clinical intuition in family medicine: more than first impressions. Ann Fam Med. 2013;11(1):60–6.
51.
HammondKR. Principles of Organization in Intuitive and Analytical Cognition. Boulder: Center for Research on Judgment and Policy, University of Colorado; 1981.
52.
HammondKR. Intuitive and analytical cognition: information models. In: SageA, ed. Concise Encyclopedia of Information Processing in Systems and Organizations. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press; 1990. p 306–12.
53.
AbernathyCMHammRM. Surgical Intuition. Philadelphia: Hanley and Belfus; 1995.
54.
Van PuymbroeckHRemmenRDenekensJScherpbierABisoffiZVan Den EndeJ. Teaching problem solving and decision making in undergraduate medical education: an instructional strategy. Med Teach. 2003;25(5):547–50.
55.
PapaFJAldrichDSchumackerRE. The effects of immediate online feedback upon diagnostic performance. Acad Med. 1999;74(10 suppl):S16–8.
56.
HammRM. Medical decision scripts: combining cognitive scripts and judgment strategies to account fully for medical decision making. In: HardmanDMacchiL, eds. Thinking: Psychological Perspectives on Reasoning, Judgment and Decision Making. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2003. p 315–45.
