Abstract 226: Canadian Experience Facilitating a Hands‐on Neurointerventional Workshop for Neurology Trainees
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction Neurointerventional radiology is a growing field that has seen innumerable advances in recent years. Unlike the US, which has a sizeable presence of interventional neurologists[1], Canada has disproportionately fewer neurologists in the field of neurointervention. One of the barriers to neurology trainees entering the field of neurointerventional radiology is a lack of exposure during their training. To address this barrier, we conducted the first hands‐on neurointervention workshop focusing on neurology trainees during a Canadian national conference. Though this workshop was open to trainees from neurology, neuroradiology, and neurosurgery, it was conducted in association with the Canadian Stroke Consortium and therefore marketed towards neurology trainees. This pilot hands‐on workshop was the first of its kind in Canada targeting neurology trainees. Methods A 2‐hour workshop was conducted in June, 2023 during a Canadian national conference. The workshop included 3 stations: basic equipment orientation, overview of endovascular techniques for ischemic stroke, and an intracranial aneurysm treatment model treatment station. Participants had an opportunity to rotate through each station at least once. Each station was facilitated by a neurointerventionalist or fellow who demonstrated the techniques and devices to participants. Participants practiced handling wires and catheters, deploying stent‐retrievers, and deploying coils in an aneurysm model, among other essential neurointerventional skills. Participants were asked to voluntarily provide feedback via electronic survey. An electronic survey was emailed to participants, on a voluntary basis; responses were anonymized. Survey results were collected and analyzed using Google Forms. Results Twelve workshop participants consented to participate in the survey and seven completed the entire survey. Respondents were from multiple Canadian neurology residency programs, medical schools, and vascular neurology fellowship programs. Prior to the workshop, most respondents (71.4%) had little‐to‐no knowledge about interventional techniques. Only one respondent answered that their training program provides hands‐on neurointervention experience. Most respondents found the station on endovascular techniques for ischemic stroke to be the most helpful. Prior to the workshop, many respondents had not considered pursuing neurointerventional radiology training. At least one participant responded that they would more favorably consider pursuing neurointerventional radiology following the workshop. Conclusion Increasing neurology trainee exposure to neurointerventional radiology is essential for expanding the number of neurologists entering this field. Events at national and international conferences that provide hands‐on experience are one way to increase exposure. This workshop provided practical experience, particularly in endovascular therapy techniques. All participants had little to no exposure to neurointervention and all favorably rated the workshop. Based on this pilot project, further efforts are needed to incorporate neurointerventional radiology training into Canadian neurology training programs.
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 | 0,007 | 0,010 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,014 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,004 | 0,008 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,003 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,043 | 0,005 |
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 ».