The Exposure Dilemma: Qualitative Study of Medical Student Opinions and Perceptions of Radiology
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: According to a national survey of over 900 Canadian medical students, the stereotype of an isolated radiologist working in a dark room persists. The purpose of this study is to use qualitative methods to explore the ways exposure to radiology in medical school impacts students' opinions and perceptions of radiology and radiologists. METHODS: After receiving ethics approval, 4 focus groups were conducted, 1 per year of undergraduate medical training at Western University. The transcribed audio recordings and accompanying field notes, together with the open-ended questions obtained from the national survey, were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Five hundred sixty students in medical school years 1 and 2 (preclerkship) participated in the national survey and 18 in the focus groups; 336 students in years 3 and 4 [clerkship] participated in the national survey and 10 in the focus groups. Three major findings emerged from the analysis of the data. First, stereotypes are perpetuated mainly through informal interactions. Second, there is limited exposure to radiology and radiologists in medical school, especially in preclerkship. Third, students want to know what to expect if they choose a career in radiology. CONCLUSIONS: Medical students, especially those in preclerkship, are seeking accurate information to modify or reinforce radiology stereotypes. Limited exposure makes interactions with students impactful and mentorship essential. Students want meaningful interactions with radiologists and radiology residents.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it