Education Research: Neuroradiology Curriculum and Competencies Among Canadian Adult Neurology Residency Programs
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
<h3>Background and Objectives</h3> While benefitting from neuroradiologists9 reports, neurologists use their own image interpretation to guide clinical decisions, especially in acute care settings. This calls for robust neuroradiology training in neurology residency, informed by current educational gaps and practices. This study aims to (1) characterize the formal neuroradiology curriculum among Canadian neurology residency programs; (2) assess neurology residents9 neuroimaging interpretation competencies; and (3) define neurology residents9 and program directors9 (PDs) attitudes toward the current curriculum and future directions. <h3>Methods</h3> Anonymous surveys were sent to Canadian neurology residents and PDs, querying neuroradiology learning activities, imaging modalities covered, assessment modalities, perceived residents9 competencies to interpret different modalities, and attitudes regarding neuroradiology training. Residents were asked to interpret 15 neuroimaging cases. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed. Potential differences in residents9 interpretation success rates by seniority, self-perceived proficiency, and perception of curriculum sufficiency were examined using 2-tailed Welch tests with a 95% CI and Holm-Bonferroni comparison adjustment. Statistics were computed using Excel. <h3>Results</h3> Seventy-eight (32.6%) residents and 11 (68.8%) PDs participated. Ten of 11 PDs reported including a mandatory neuroradiology rotation, and 9/11 offered a formal neuroradiology curriculum covering head CT, head and neck CT angiography (CTA), spine MRI, and head MRI. Programs predominantly offered additional didactic lectures (9/11), teaching cases (8/11), and imaging websites (8/11). Most of the residents agreed with a minimum 1-month long rotation and desired regular didactics from neuroradiologists. Residents favored learning about head MRI (88.5%), head and neck CTA (76.9%), and spine MRI (69.2%). Senior residents9 self-perceived competencies were highest for head CT, head MRI, and head and neck CTA, but lower than PDs9 perception. Senior residents had greater interpretation scores than juniors (84.5% ± 13.2% vs 69.1% ± 19.9%; <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Most PDs (7/11, 63.6%) expressed satisfaction with current curricula vs 32.1% of residents. PDs identified time and educator shortages as main barriers to increased training. <h3>Discussion</h3> Neuroradiology training varies among programs. Residents expressed strong interest in commonly taught modalities, for which they also expressed high self-perceived competencies. However, PDs expressed greater satisfaction than residents with the current training. Leveraging interactions with neuroradiologists and online case-based learning while emphasizing trainees9 interests can enhance postgraduate neuroradiology training for this useful skill.
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 | 0,001 | 0,027 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| 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 ».