Paediatricians' validation of learning objectives in paediatric cardiology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The current objectives for teaching paediatric cardiology to paediatric residents have not been validated and may not be relevant to current paediatric practice. OBJECTIVES: To validate the cardiology component of the Royal College of Physician and Surgeons of Canada's objectives for training paediatricians. METHODS: A questionnaire was sent to practising paediatricians in Atlantic Canada. The questions were based on the Royal College of Physician and Surgeons of Canada's training objectives. The frequency of problems seen, confidence in assessment and management of problems, and reasons for referral were identified. Clinical vignettes were followed by short questions. The outpatient referrals were reviewed to validate the questionnaire responses. RESULTS: One hundred fifty-one questionnaires were mailed and the response rate was 60%. Murmurs were the most common problem encountered (92%). Syncope (9%), Kawasaki disease (8%) and chest pain (6%) were less frequently encountered. Paediatricians were confident in assessing and managing problems despite the low frequency of encounters. Less confidence was expressed regarding physical examination skills and interpretation of electrocardiograms. Uncertainty of the diagnosis was the most common reason for patient referral, with parental anxiety and medicolegal concerns accounting for 24% and 7% of referrals, respectively. Syncope with exercise was relatively poorly recognized as a worrisome symptom. CONCLUSIONS: Most cardiology objectives for general paediatric training remain relevant and appropriate to clinical practice. Physical examination skills, electrocardiogram interpretation and the assessment of syncope need to be emphasized.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".