Are Pathologists Self-Aware of Their Diagnostic Accuracy? Metacognition and the Diagnostic Process in Pathology

Dayna A. Clayton, Megan M. Eguchi, Kathleen F. Kerr, Kiyofumi Miyoshi, Tad T. Brunyé, Trafton Drew, Donald L. Weaver and Joann G. Elmore
Additional contact information
Dayna A. Clayton: Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Megan M. Eguchi: Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Kathleen F. Kerr: Department of Biostatistics, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, USA
Kiyofumi Miyoshi: Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Tad T. Brunyé: Center for Applied Brain and Cognitive Sciences, Tufts University, Medford, MA, USA
Trafton Drew: Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Donald L. Weaver: Department of Pathology & Laboratory Medicine, University of Vermont Larner College of Medicine, Burlington, VT, USA
Joann G. Elmore: Department of Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Medical Decision Making, 2023, vol. 43, issue 2, 164-174

Abstract: Background Metacognition is a cognitive process that involves self-awareness of thinking, understanding, and performance. This study assesses pathologists’ metacognition by examining the association between their diagnostic accuracy and self-reported confidence levels while interpreting skin and breast biopsies. Design We studied 187 pathologists from the Melanoma Pathology Study (M-Path) and 115 pathologists from the Breast Pathology Study (B-Path). We measured pathologists’ metacognitive ability by examining the area under the curve (AUC), the area under each pathologist’s receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve summarizing the association between confidence and diagnostic accuracy. We investigated possible relationships between this AUC measure, referred to as metacognitive sensitivity, and pathologist attributes. We also assessed whether higher metacognitive sensitivity affected the association between diagnostic accuracy and a secondary diagnostic action such as requesting a second opinion. Results We found no significant associations between pathologist clinical attributes and metacognitive AUC. However, we found that pathologists with higher AUC showed a stronger trend to request secondary diagnostic action for inaccurate diagnoses and not for accurate diagnoses compared with pathologists with lower AUC. Limitations Pathologists reported confidence in specific diagnostic terms, rather than the broader classes into which the diagnostic terms were later grouped to determine accuracy. In addition, while there is no gold standard for the correct diagnosis to determine the accuracy of pathologists’ interpretations, our studies achieved a high-quality reference diagnosis by using the consensus diagnosis of 3 experienced pathologists. Conclusions Metacognition can affect clinical decisions. If pathologists have self-awareness that their diagnosis may be inaccurate, they can request additional tests or second opinions, providing the opportunity to correct inaccurate diagnoses. Highlights Metacognitive sensitivity varied across pathologists, with most showing higher sensitivity than expected by chance. None of the demographic or clinical characteristics we examined was significantly associated with metacognitive sensitivity. Pathologists with higher metacognitive sensitivity were more likely to request additional tests or second opinions for their inaccurate diagnoses.

Keywords: metacognitive sensitivity; diagnostic accuracy; cognitive science; dermatopathology; breast pathology; secondary diagnostic actions; awareness (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2023
References: View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X221126528 (text/html)

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:sae:medema:v:43:y:2023:i:2:p:164-174

DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221126528

Access Statistics for this article

More articles in Medical Decision Making
Bibliographic data for series maintained by SAGE Publications ().