Framing effects don't disappear just because the audience is highly trained — physicians and medical students, presented with mathematically identical survival statistics worded differently, make measurably different treatment recommendations depending purely on the wording. Describing a treatment's outcome as a "90% one-month survival rate" produces a different reaction than describing the exact same outcome as "10% mortality within one month," even though the two statements convey identical information.
This matters directly for anyone communicating risk, in medicine or elsewhere: the frame chosen isn't a neutral packaging decision, it's an active lever on the decision the audience is likely to make — which means responsible communication of statistics requires deliberately checking both framings against each other, not defaulting to whichever one happens to sound better for a preferred outcome.
In a study with physicians and medical students, describing a surgical option for lung cancer using a '90% one-month survival rate' made surgery a significantly more popular choice than radiation, compared to describing the mathematically identical outcome as a '10% mortality rate within one month.' The two descriptions carry exactly the same statistical information, yet even highly trained medical professionals recommended differently depending on which version they were given.