Systems 1 and 2 thinking processes and cognitive reflection testing in medical students

Background: Diagnostic decision-making is made through a combination of Systems 1 (intuition or pattern-recognition) and Systems 2 (analytic) thinking. The purpose of this study was to use the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to evaluate and compare the level of Systems 1 and 2 thinking among medical students in pre-clinical and clinical programs. Methods: The CRT is a three-question test designed to measure the ability of respondents to activate metacognitive processes and switch to System 2 (analytic) thinking where System 1 (intuitive) thinking would lead them astray. Each CRT question has a correct analytical (System 2) answer and an incorrect intuitive (System 1) answer. A group of medical students in Years 2 & 3 (pre-clinical) and Years 4 (in clinical practice) of a 5-year medical degree were studied. Results: Ten percent (13/128) of students had the intuitive answers to the three questions (suggesting they generally relied on System 1 thinking) while almost half (44%) answered all three correctly (indicating full analytical, System 2 thinking). Only 3-13% had incorrect answers (i.e. that were neither the analytical nor the intuitive responses). Non-native English speaking students (n = 11) had a lower mean number of correct answers compared to native English speakers (n = 117: 1.0 s 2.12 respectfully: p < 0.01). As students progressed through questions 1 to 3, the percentage of correct System 2 answers increased and the percentage of intuitive answers decreased in both the pre-clinical and clinical students. Conclusions: Up to half of the medical students demonstrated full or partial reliance on System 1 (intuitive) thinking in response to these analytical questions. While their CRT performance has no claims to make as to their future expertise as clinicians, the test may be used in helping students to understand the importance of awareness and regulation of their thinking processes in clinical practice.

The effects of centrally acting ACE inhibitors on the rate of cognitive and functional decline in dementia: a KDD approach

Alzheimer’s Disease and other dementias are one of the most challenging illnesses confronting countries with ageing populations. Treatment options for dementia are limited, and the costs are significant. There is a growing need to develop new treatments for dementia, especially for the elderly. There is also growing evidence that centrally acting angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, which cross the blood-brain barrier, are associated with a reduced rate of cognitive and functional decline in dementia, especially in Alzheimer’s disease (AD). The aim of this research is to investigate the effects of centrally acting ACE inhibitors (CACE-Is) on the rate of cognitive and functional decline in dementia, using a three phased KDD process. KDD, as a scientific way to process and analysis clinical data, is used to find useful insights from a variety of clinical databases. The data used are from three clinic databases: Geriatric Assessment Tool (GAT), the Doxycycline and Rifampin for Alzheimer’s Disease (DARAD), and the Qmci validation databases, which were derived from several different geriatric clinics in Canada. This research involves patients diagnosed with AD, vascular or mixed dementia only. Patients were included if baseline and end-point (at least six months apart) Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE), Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) or Activities Daily Living (ADL) scores were available. Basically, the rates of change are compared between patients taking CACE-Is, and those not currently treated with CACE-Is. The results suggest that there is a statistically significant difference in the rate of decline in cognitive and functional scores between CACE-I and NoCACE-I patients. This research also validates that the Qmci, a new short assessment test, has potential to replace the current popular screening tests for cognition in the clinic and clinical trials.