The University of Michigan Imaging Assessment Tool (UM-IAT)
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction Evidence in the literature is mixed regarding the competence of health professional trainees when interpreting imaging studies independently, as there are no widely accepted assessment standards for basic radiology skills. This is especially the case for trainees who are not pursuing radiology as their eventual specialty. Various methods have been used to assess learners' ability to interpret imaging, including peer review of image interpretation as a learning tool, and comparison between attending and learner interpretation of imaging studies. As with other performance-based clinical skills, there is a measurable learning curve for these image interpretation skills. This resource is a one-time competency-based assessment to determine baseline skills for interpretation skills. Methods This quiz follows a case-presentation format. Each case consists of a set of radiological images, and a brief query or description of a patient and his or her chief complaint. The quiz is administered in a test setting to assess interns' image interpretation skills. It is delivered online with 20-minutes allowed for completion. There are 14 images that must be identified, which are typical of those learners, or mid-level practitioners, are asked to interpret. The authors also provide a directed PowerPoint to highlight where learners should focus their attention in order to arrive at the correct interpretation in the future. Results An analysis of the quiz as a whole was conducted. After removal of individual items with negative discrimination indices, overall test-level discrimination persisted (f (2,365) = 20.04, p < 0.0001). Further, a poster presentation of this tool received the Top Poster award at the International Conference on Residency Education in Ottawa, Ontario Canada in 2012 and was published in Academic Radiology in 2014. Discussion This quiz provides actionable information to clinical supervisors and program directors related to residents' and mid-level practitioners' ability to begin the process of indirect supervision regarding interpretation of radiologic images. While this assessment is a useful tool for clinical supervisors and program directors to gain insight into trainees' ability to interpret images, we recommend this quiz be used in conjunction with formalized training rather than as a stand-alone tool. This tool is not intended to replace the ultimate determination of clinical interpretation of trained radiologists.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».