These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

271 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 29978726)

  • 1. Double Conjunction Fallacies in Physicians' Probability Judgment.
    Crupi V; Elia F; Aprà F; Tentori K
    Med Decis Making; 2018 Aug; 38(6):756-760. PubMed ID: 29978726
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. On the determinants of the conjunction fallacy: probability versus inductive confirmation.
    Tentori K; Crupi V; Russo S
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2013 Feb; 142(1):235-255. PubMed ID: 22823498
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. The conjunction fallacy, confirmation, and quantum theory: comment on Tentori, Crupi, and Russo (2013).
    Busemeyer JR; Wang Z; Pothos EM; Trueblood JS
    J Exp Psychol Gen; 2015 Feb; 144(1):236-43. PubMed ID: 25621376
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Availability, wishful thinking, and physicians' diagnostic judgments for patients with suspected bacteremia.
    Poses RM; Anthony M
    Med Decis Making; 1991; 11(3):159-68. PubMed ID: 1881270
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Typicality and reasoning fallacies.
    Shafir EB; Smith EE; Osherson DN
    Mem Cognit; 1990 May; 18(3):229-39. PubMed ID: 2355854
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Source reliability and the conjunction fallacy.
    Jarvstad A; Hahn U
    Cogn Sci; 2011; 35(4):682-711. PubMed ID: 21564268
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. A universal model of diagnostic reasoning.
    Croskerry P
    Acad Med; 2009 Aug; 84(8):1022-8. PubMed ID: 19638766
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. The covariance decomposition of the probability score and its use in evaluating prognostic estimates. SUPPORT Investigators.
    Arkes HR; Dawson NV; Speroff T; Harrell FE; Alzola C; Phillips R; Desbiens N; Oye RK; Knaus W; Connors AF
    Med Decis Making; 1995; 15(2):120-31. PubMed ID: 7783572
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Neglect of alternative causes in predictive but not diagnostic reasoning.
    Fernbach PM; Darlow A; Sloman SA
    Psychol Sci; 2010 Mar; 21(3):329-36. PubMed ID: 20424064
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. A quantum theory account of order effects and conjunction fallacies in political judgments.
    Yearsley JM; Trueblood JS
    Psychon Bull Rev; 2018 Aug; 25(4):1517-1525. PubMed ID: 28879495
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Random variation and systematic biases in probability estimation.
    Howe R; Costello F
    Cogn Psychol; 2020 Dec; 123():101306. PubMed ID: 33189032
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. On the reality of the conjunction fallacy.
    Sides A; Osherson D; Bonini N; Viale R
    Mem Cognit; 2002 Mar; 30(2):191-8. PubMed ID: 12035881
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. The Influence of Effortful Thought and Cognitive Proficiencies on the Conjunction Fallacy: Implications for Dual-Process Theories of Reasoning and Judgment.
    Scherer LD; Yates JF; Baker SG; Valentine KD
    Pers Soc Psychol Bull; 2017 Jun; 43(6):874-887. PubMed ID: 28903676
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Fear of knowledge: Clinical hypotheses in diagnostic and prognostic reasoning.
    Chiffi D; Zanotti R
    J Eval Clin Pract; 2017 Oct; 23(5):928-934. PubMed ID: 27882636
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. An associative framework for probability judgment: an application to biases.
    Cobos PL; Almaraz J; García-Madruga JA
    J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn; 2003 Jan; 29(1):80-96. PubMed ID: 12549585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. One size does not fit all: questions to answer before intervening to change physician behavior.
    Poses RM
    Jt Comm J Qual Improv; 1999 Sep; 25(9):486-95. PubMed ID: 10481818
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. Surprisingly rational: probability theory plus noise explains biases in judgment.
    Costello F; Watts P
    Psychol Rev; 2014 Jul; 121(3):463-80. PubMed ID: 25090427
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. Physicians' diagnostic judgments and treatment decisions for acute otitis media in children.
    González-Vallejo C; Sorum PC; Stewart TR; Chessare JB; Mumpower JL
    Med Decis Making; 1998; 18(2):149-62. PubMed ID: 9566448
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. How to explain receptivity to conjunction-fallacy inhibition training: evidence from the Iowa gambling task.
    Cassotti M; Moutier S
    Brain Cogn; 2010 Apr; 72(3):378-84. PubMed ID: 20015585
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Individual Differences in Numeracy and Cognitive Reflection, with Implications for Biases and Fallacies in Probability Judgment.
    Liberali JM; Reyna VF; Furlan S; Stein LM; Pardo ST
    J Behav Decis Mak; 2012 Oct; 25(4):361-381. PubMed ID: 23878413
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 14.