Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Purpose: Medical education transformed immensely in the past decade and has more recently become increasingly digitized.These changes have been accelerated by COVID-19.However, throughout this modernisation, it is suggested that there is a continued paucity of radiological education. 1 This contrasts with the increased role of radiology in clinical medicine, wherein radiographic investigations are being increasingly utilized as diagnostic, prognostic and monitoring tools. 2 Picture archiving and communication systems (PACS) liberalized access to scans, allowing non-radiologists to interpret scans if required and thus, rely less on full interpretation of the clinical picture. 3 Altogether, increased demands have been placed on radiologists, with 44% reporting burnout in a recent survey and a projected shortage of radiologists in Australia. 3,4 The purpose of this study is to evaluate the perceptions of radiological education and the radiological specialty in medical students.It aims to assess students' views on the quantity and quality of radiological education.Additionally, it will compare whether students find radiological education more effective when delivered face-to-face or when delivered digitally.Finally, it will assess the likelihood of students considering radiology as a future specialty.Methods and Materials: A single-center qualitative cross-sectional study will be carried out at a university in Queensland, Australia.A Likert-style questionnaire will be administered that assesses several domains based on the study aims.De-identified data will be collected utilizing Microsoft Forms and stored securely on password-protected servers.Results: The survey will assess the following domains: the importance of radiological education; the quantity, quality, and preferred modes (face-to-face or digital) of radiological education; confidence in radiological anatomy and interpreting basic imaging modalities; interest in radiology as a specialty.Preliminary qualitative data suggest that medical students are not confident in radiology and feel that benefit would be garnered from further dedicated radiology education.Students find face-to-face education modalities more engaging, but digital modalities are more accessible and easily revisited.There is a moderate level of interest in radiology, with perceived positives including "lifestyle" and perceived barriers including "isolation from patients", and "competitive entry".Conclusion: This study serves as a valuable evaluation of the radiology education received by a cohort of medical students and an assessment of the extent to which students consider radiology as future career.This will be beneficial in ascertaining whether changes in radiology education may be required and highlight approaches that students find valuable, which could be subject to further studies that assess suitability for implementation into a medical curriculum.3.
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 | 0,004 | 0,004 |
| 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 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».