Contouring experiences amongst Australian, New Zealand and Singaporean radiation oncology trainees. Is it enough? What next?
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
INTRODUCTION: This paper reports the key findings of the first survey of Australian, New Zealand (ANZ) and Singaporean radiation oncology trainees on contouring and planning. METHODS: The survey was conducted from May to July 2018 using a 35-question instrument. It was emailed to all ANZ and Singaporean trainees on the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) database with at least 6 months experience. The questions related to demographics, time spent on contouring, most difficult sites to contour, most useful atlas, feedback on contouring, interaction with radiation therapists, plan reviews, stereotactic radiation therapy (SBRT), brachytherapy and suggested areas of improvement. Respondents were assured that their responses were anonymous. RESULTS: The response rate was 50% (54/108). Most respondents were from New South Wales (31%) with nearly all working full time (96%) and a large majority in public practice (89%). All respondents had at least one other accredited trainee at their site. The large majority (75%) spent at least two hours per week contouring, but nearly 80% had to spend some time out of hours contouring with 10% performing all their contouring out of hours. Two-thirds of respondents indicated there was insufficient time for contouring with over half having no allocated time for this activity. All respondents were allowed to independently contour by their consultants and were allowed to do radical and palliative cases. The most difficult cases to contour were head and neck and the upper gastrointestinal sites with the RTOG atlas the most useful guide. All trainee respondents received feedback on their contouring which was most often face to face. Interaction with radiation therapists was valuable and more interaction was desired. Two-thirds (67%) of respondents had the opportunity to review treatment plans with consultants with one to two cases per week being the most common numbers reviewed, but this was usually not done (87%) on an allocated time in the roster. The large majority (90%) had the opportunity to be involved in brachytherapy, but this dropped to 60% for SBRT. Three quarters (73%) of respondents felt that there was not enough time spent on contouring, planning and evaluation of plans. CONCLUSIONS: This initial detailed survey of ANZ and Singaporean trainees on contouring and planning indicates that dedicated protected time without interruption is required for this integral activity with current hours spent on this activity inadequate. Optimisation and improvement in a number of areas is required. Feedback from this study should be adopted by sites and networks. Feedback could also be considered as the Faculty of Radiation Oncology transitions into programmatic assessment.
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 machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,009 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
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 source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), 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 ».