Remote Psychiatric Reasoning Consultant
Budget: $100 – $200 USD
Our research project examines how psychiatric professionals reason through representative, non-patient, hypothetical cases, focusing on how symptoms are interpreted, diagnoses are considered, and high-level treatment approaches are discussed in an educational context. Each week, I’m looking for an experienced psychiatrist to help build and refine material that will later be used for training, evaluation, and research purposes, including with trainees and AI models.
What you’ll actually do
• Draft realistic, case-based, open-ended questions reflecting common, non-crisis outpatient scenarios.
• Annotate each case with step-by-step diagnostic reasoning, differential considerations, and high-level treatment considerations (non-prescriptive).
• Review existing prompts, flag missing context, refine wording, and ensure internal consistency with established psychiatric frameworks and evidence-based guidance.
• Meet briefly once a week via video to discuss feedback and plan the next set of vignettes; asynchronous comments are welcome between calls.
Acceptance criteria
Each vignette includes patient background, mental-status observations, and relevant contextual data where appropriate.
Reasoning notes clearly connect observed features to diagnostic frameworks and explain why alternatives were deprioritized.
Treatment discussions remain high-level, referencing standard categories of intervention and safety considerations without patient-specific recommendations.
Tool familiarity
Microsoft Word or Google Docs for drafts, basic version control in Google Drive, and Zoom for weekly check-ins. No specialized software is required.
This is an ongoing collaboration where clarity, consistency, and thoughtful reasoning matter more than volume. For regulatory and research-alignment reasons, this project is currently scoped to contributors based in the US, UK, or Canada. If you enjoy analyzing clinical decision-making in a research or educational context, this project should be a good fit.
What you’ll actually do
• Draft realistic, case-based, open-ended questions reflecting common, non-crisis outpatient scenarios.
• Annotate each case with step-by-step diagnostic reasoning, differential considerations, and high-level treatment considerations (non-prescriptive).
• Review existing prompts, flag missing context, refine wording, and ensure internal consistency with established psychiatric frameworks and evidence-based guidance.
• Meet briefly once a week via video to discuss feedback and plan the next set of vignettes; asynchronous comments are welcome between calls.
Acceptance criteria
Each vignette includes patient background, mental-status observations, and relevant contextual data where appropriate.
Reasoning notes clearly connect observed features to diagnostic frameworks and explain why alternatives were deprioritized.
Treatment discussions remain high-level, referencing standard categories of intervention and safety considerations without patient-specific recommendations.
Tool familiarity
Microsoft Word or Google Docs for drafts, basic version control in Google Drive, and Zoom for weekly check-ins. No specialized software is required.
This is an ongoing collaboration where clarity, consistency, and thoughtful reasoning matter more than volume. For regulatory and research-alignment reasons, this project is currently scoped to contributors based in the US, UK, or Canada. If you enjoy analyzing clinical decision-making in a research or educational context, this project should be a good fit.