Definition and research guide
This page combines a MeSH definition, publication statistics and selected research abstracts. It is a starting point for reading the literature, not a medical textbook or a systematic evidence review.
Content available: 3 complete abstracts (414 words), 9 references. Full article text is not stored or reproduced here; follow the PMID, DOI or PMC links to read the original sources and their access terms.
Definition
The process of making a selective intellectual judgment when presented with several complex alternatives consisting of several variables, and usually defining a course of action or an idea.
Definition: NLM Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) scope note (Public domain (U.S. National Library of Medicine); attribution requested). View the MeSH record.
Also known as: Credit Assignment; Assignment, Credit; Assignments, Credit; Credit Assignments.
Where it fits in the MeSH classification
- Broader topics
- Thinking
- Narrower topics
- Avoidance Learning; Choice Behavior; Consensus; Decision Making, Shared; Dissent and Disputes; Negotiating; Uncertainty
- See also
- Decision Support Techniques; Game Theory; Policy Making
Research landscape
PubMed indexes 250,406 records tagged with the MeSH heading “Decision Making” (counts retrieved 2026-10-31). 52,221 of them (20.9%) were published from 2020 onward, and the busiest period so far is 2010-2019 with 94,227 records.
Reviews account for 24,590 records (9.8%) and meta-analyses for 915. Randomized controlled trials number 4,847 (1.9%) as a share of all records on the topic. Randomized trials make up only a small share of this literature, so much of what is known comes from laboratory, observational or descriptive work.
Show the data
| Period | Records |
|---|---|
| through 1999 | 49,128 |
| 2000-2009 | 54,830 |
| 2010-2019 | 94,227 |
| 2020 onward | 52,221 |
Publication-type chart data
| Type | Records | Share |
|---|---|---|
| Reviews | 24,590 | 9.8% |
| Meta-analyses | 915 | 0.4% |
| Randomized controlled trials | 4,847 | 1.9% |
Method: PubMed query "Decision Making"[MeSH Terms] with publication-type and date filters, retrieved 2026-10-31.
Reading the evidence in psychiatry and psychology
Research on mental health and behaviour relies on questionnaires, interviews and rating scales rather than physical measurements, so how a condition was defined and measured shapes every result. Many studies are observational or small, placebo responses can be large, and findings in one group or culture may not carry over to another. Nothing on this page is advice about diagnosis or treatment; anyone worried about their mental health should talk to a qualified clinician. Check how outcomes were measured, who took part and how long they were followed.
Evidence from open-access studies
These open-access studies come from PubMed’s best-match results for this heading (papers whose main topic it is), ranked here by citation count, with one recent addition. Each abstract is reproduced in full under its recorded open licence so that you can read the authors’ own words. They illustrate the literature; they are not a systematic summary of it. Citation counts measure attention, not reliability or clinical benefit.
| Study / authors | Year | Source label / design | Europe PMC citations | Licence / source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| The choice-wide behavioral association study: data-driven identification of interpretable behavioral components | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 3 | cc by PMID 42733062 · DOI · PMC13572513 |
| Neural and computational mechanisms of effort under the pressure of a deadline | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 2 | cc by PMID 42660916 · DOI · PMC13522516 |
| Foraging models explain human exploration in uncertain tasks | 2026 | Research article Design not recorded in structured metadata | 2 | cc by PMID 42669730 · DOI · PMC13526786 |
The choice-wide behavioral association study: data-driven identification of interpretable behavioral components [1]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Behavior contains rich structure across many timescales.
- Closing excerpt
- We illustrate CBAS through application to tasks performed by flies, rats, and humans, showing that it provides unexpected and interpretable information in each case.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (107 words)
Behavior contains rich structure across many timescales. However, there is a dearth of methods to identify relevant components, especially over the longer periods required for learning and decision-making. Inspired by the goals and techniques of genome-wide association studies, we present a data-driven method-the choice-wide behavioral association study: CBAS-that systematically identifies such behavioral features. CBAS extracts sequences of actions or choices that either significantly differ between groups or correlate with a covariate of interest, using a powerful resampling-based method to correct for multiple comparisons. We illustrate CBAS through application to tasks performed by flies, rats, and humans, showing that it provides unexpected and interpretable information in each case.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42733062 · DOI · PMC13572513
Neural and computational mechanisms of effort under the pressure of a deadline [2]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Deadlines fundamentally shape motivation.
- Closing excerpt
- These results reveal the neurocomputational mechanisms for how deadline pressure shapes motivation, and keep us on track with goals.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (149 words)
Deadlines fundamentally shape motivation. Research examining effort-based choices finds effort is an avoided cost. However, this overlooks how making progress on longer-term goals to be reached before deadlines motivate people to exert high effort for little immediate reward. Here, we test a framework where motivation depends on deadline pressure (work remaining / time remaining). Across four studies we use computational modelling examining decisions when physical effort makes progress on goals with deadlines. In support of the hypotheses, deadline pressure significantly impacts decision-making, shifting people from avoiding effort, to seeking the progress it makes. Using ultra-high-field fMRI, we show that functionally connected putamen and midcingulate cortex sub-regions process and update estimates of deadline pressure, with distinct anterior cingulate and putamen sub-regions processing effort both when it is being avoided or sought. These results reveal the neurocomputational mechanisms for how deadline pressure shapes motivation, and keep us on track with goals.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42660916 · DOI · PMC13522516
Foraging models explain human exploration in uncertain tasks [3]
Abstract reading summary — source excerpts
- Opening excerpt
- Different fields have fundamentally different models of how decisions are made.
- Closing excerpt
- These results suggest that humans use compare-to-threshold computations in more environments than were previously known.
- Interpretation limits
- Verbatim excerpts from the authors’ abstract; the closing excerpt may describe a finding, limitation or recommendation. Design, population, effect size and uncertainty have not been independently extracted or appraised. Read the complete abstract and linked paper before interpreting the findings.
Read complete abstract (158 words)
Different fields have fundamentally different models of how decisions are made. Psychology and neuroscience tend to assume that decisions are made by calculating and comparing the values of all options. In ethology, conversely, decisions tend to be binary regardless of the number of options: Decision-makers calculate the value of continuing to exploit some option and explore only when this value drops below a threshold. Because these fields use incompatible methods, it remains unclear which view better describes human decision-making. We find that humans use compare-to-threshold computations even in classic compare-alternative tasks. Because the reinforcement-learning models typically used in the cognitive and brain sciences depend on compare-alternative computations, we also develop a compare-to-threshold foraging model. Compared to previous models, the foraging model better fits participant behavior, predicts the tendency to repeat choices, and predicts held-out participants that were almost impossible under traditional compare-alternative models. These results suggest that humans use compare-to-threshold computations in more environments than were previously known.
Abstract reproduced from the open-access article under the recorded cc by licence; © the authors. PMID 42669730 · DOI · PMC13526786
Key reviews and meta-analyses
The most cited review-type papers among PubMed’s best-match results for this heading, listed with bibliographic details only. Follow the links for the full text and access terms.
- Research article Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Cardiac Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society Recommendations [4]
- Research article The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure [5]
- Research article Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Magnitude of Structural, Clinical, and Physician and Patient Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation [6]
- Research article Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis [7]
- Research article Steep delay discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis of continuous associations [8]
- Research article Distinct neural mechanisms of risk and ambiguity: a meta-analysis of decision-making [9]
Full-text reviews on EvidenceLib
Open-access review articles about this topic, reproduced in full with authors, licence and references.
Systematic review of shared decision-making interventions for people living with chronic respiratory diseases
Amy C Barradell, Charlotte Gerlis, Linzy Houchen-Wolloff et al. · BMJ Open 2023 · CC BY 4.0
Latinx attitudes, barriers, and experiences with genetic counseling and testing: A systematic review
Heather A. Dron, Daiana Bucio, Jennifer L. Young et al. · Journal of Genetic Counseling 2022 · CC BY 4.0
Quality of life versus length of life considerations in cancer patients: A systematic literature review
Anne Shrestha, Charlene Martin, Maria Burton et al. · Psycho-Oncology 2019 · CC BY 4.0
References
- Kastner DB, Yokota NO, Lee CY, Holobetz C, Chaudhry A, Williams G, et al.. The choice-wide behavioral association study: data-driven identification of interpretable behavioral components. . 2026. PMID 42733062 · DOI · PMC13572513
- Pisauro MA, Pollicino D, Fisher L, Apps MAJ. Neural and computational mechanisms of effort under the pressure of a deadline. . 2026. PMID 42660916 · DOI · PMC13522516
- Zid M, Laurie VJ, Ramírez-Ruiz J, Lavigne-Champagne A, Shourkeshti A, Harrell DC, et al.. Foraging models explain human exploration in uncertain tasks. . 2026. PMID 42669730 · DOI · PMC13526786
- Engelman DT, Ben Ali W, Williams JB, Perrault LP, Reddy VS, Arora RC, et al.. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Cardiac Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society Recommendations. JAMA Surg. 2019. PMID 31054241 · DOI
- Steel P. The nature of procrastination: a meta-analytic and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure. Psychol Bull. 2007. PMID 17201571 · DOI
- Unger JM, Vaidya R, Hershman DL, Minasian LM, Fleury ME. Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Magnitude of Structural, Clinical, and Physician and Patient Barriers to Cancer Clinical Trial Participation. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2019. PMID 30856272 · DOI · PMC6410951
- Durand MA, Carpenter L, Dolan H, Bravo P, Mann M, Bunn F, et al.. Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2014. PMID 24736389 · DOI · PMC3988077
- Amlung M, Vedelago L, Acker J, Balodis I, MacKillop J. Steep delay discounting and addictive behavior: a meta-analysis of continuous associations. Addiction. 2017. PMID 27450931 · DOI · PMC5148639
- Krain AL, Wilson AM, Arbuckle R, Castellanos FX, Milham MP. Distinct neural mechanisms of risk and ambiguity: a meta-analysis of decision-making. Neuroimage. 2006. PMID 16632383 · DOI
About this article
- Sources
- NLM Medical Subject Headings (definition, synonyms); NCBI PubMed (counts, identifiers); Europe PMC (open-access abstracts and citation counts).
- Verification
- Every reference was resolved against PubMed on 2026-11-04; title, year and DOI matched.
- Review state
- automated source verified; no human expert review has been recorded yet.
- Version
- 1, last updated 2026-11-04.
See how EvidenceLib is built. Spotted an error? Email support@evidencehelix.com.
Evidence strength
EvidenceHelix's computed view of the study designs behind this topic: how common meta-analyses, randomized trials and reviews are, how recent the literature is, and a plain-language reading. It describes the design mix of the literature. It is not a quality appraisal of any study, and it is not medical advice.