I’m experimenting with a new format in between typical interviews where my good friend Daniel and I share some learning points we have picked up in the past few months from our reading and clinical experiences. Let us know how you like this format in the comments
[2:00] Joshua’s approach to learning from physician disputes (evidentiary standards vs therapeutic fashion vs differing clinical contexts vs differing psychological propensities of the clinician vs patient values)
[13:00] Daniel’s improved approach to syncope workup
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2736568?utm_source=openevidence&utm_medium=referral
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10024337/
https://www.coreimpodcast.com/2025/09/11/orthostasis-part-1-gray-matters/
https://www.coreimpodcast.com/2025/09/22/orthostatic-hypotension-part-2-gray-matters/
[19:50] Joshua’s renewed focus on the importance of the history of science
Myth #1: Science is a game of lone intellectual heroes
Myth #2: Science is a clear systematic approach to understanding the world in practice
“Ask a scientist what he conceives the scientific method to be, and he will adopt an expression that is at once solemn and shifty-eyed: solemn because he feels he ought to declare an opinion; shifty-eyed because he is wondering how to conceal the fact that he has no opinion to declare.” Induction and Intuition in Scientific Thought (London: Methuen 1969) p. 11.
[25:30] Daniel’s improved illness script for gallbladder pain
https://jamaevidence.mhmedical.com/content.aspx?bookid=845§ionid=61357499
https://clinicalproblemsolving.com/2020/02/09/clinical-reasoning-corner-likelihood-ratios/
[34:50] The new way Joshua will approach Continuous lab values (like D-dimer) with interval likelihood ratios rather than a simple +/- Likelihood Ratio
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28370759/
