The relation between medical expertise and diagnostic accuracy was case-dependent: positive for Case 4, negative for Case 1 (novices outperformed experts), and absent for Cases 2, 3, and 5¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r1 · q2
Currency · newest study 2025 · checked against its sources 2026-10-22 (automated, 2 of 2 entries) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q2 i? For Case 4, diagnostic accuracy was significantly related to expertise (OR = 14.7); for Case 1, the relation was negative and significant, with novices achieving higher diagnostic accuracy than experts. → Cloude 2025 q2 i? For Cases 2, 3, and 5, there were no significant relations between expertise and diagnostic accuracy (Case 3 OR = 0.11 was marginal, p = 0.0716, with a confidence interval crossing zero). → Cloude 2025 (2)

Evidence¶

Cloude 2025¶

Cloude, E. B., Chapman, R., Azevedo, R., Castiglioni, A., LaRochelle, J., Hernandez, C., & Torre, D. (2025). Novice and expert self-regulated learning phase transitions in medical diagnosis: Implications for adaptive and intelligent systems. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-025-09729-4

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Finding from the per-case diagnostic accuracy regression models: expertise significantly related to accuracy for Case 4 (Table 8 prints OR = 14.7, p < 0.0001) and negatively for Case 1, "showing that novices had higher diagnostic accuracy than experts". Two different groups on each side of the contrast.

"For Case 4, we found this relation was supported; yet, for Case 1, we found a negative and significant relation between expertise and diagnostic accuracy, showing that novices had higher diagnostic accuracy than experts."

Cloude 2025 (2)¶

Cloude, E. B., Chapman, R., Azevedo, R., Castiglioni, A., LaRochelle, J., Hernandez, C., & Torre, D. (2025). Novice and expert self-regulated learning phase transitions in medical diagnosis: Implications for adaptive and intelligent systems. Instructional Science. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11251-025-09729-4

q2 · i? · associational · r1

Null findings from the same regression models: no significant expertise–accuracy relations in Cases 2, 3, or 5; the Case 3 coefficient was described by the authors as marginally significant (OR = 0.11, p = 0.0716) with a confidence interval crossing zero. No effect size supports an inference of equivalence.

"For Cases 2, 3, and 5, we did not find relations between expertise and diagnostic accuracy, which did not support H3."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Prior Knowledge — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Relations between SRL phase frequency/diversity and illness script activation were mixed across cases: more frequent and diverse transitions were sometimes beneficial (Cases 2, 4) and sometimes detrimental (Cases 1, 3, 5) — related
• Experts verbalized fewer SRL phases overall than novices during clinical reasoning, with feelings of uncertainty almost absent among experts — related
• Novices showed marginally higher complexity of SRL phase sequences than experts (frequent but predictable transitions), with no group differences in entropy or transition number — related
• SRL phase transitions during clinical reasoning with a multimedia system are frequent, cyclical, and dominated by Forethought→Performance and Performance→Forethought transitions — related
• Biomedical causal knowledge improves novice diagnostic accuracy on difficult cases with irrelevant findings — related
• The third phase of expertise development uses episodic memories of actual patients in diagnosing new cases — related
• In Experiment 1, diagnosis scores were better for the liver cirrhosis case than the pheochromocytoma case, but not among experts — a narrower finding that bears on this claim