MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004264510 · doi:10.1097/mcg.0b013e318172d647

How Much do Gastroenterology Fellows Know About Nutrition?

2009· article· en· W2004264510 on OpenAlexaff
Maitreyi Raman, Claudio Violato, Sylvain Coderre

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Gastroenterology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicObesity and Health Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineNutrition EducationCronbach's alphaPediatric gastroenterologyInternal medicineObesityTest (biology)Clinical nutritionFamily medicineGastroenterologyGerontologyDiseasePsychometrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many people are afflicted with chronic diseases, in which nutrition plays a key role. The need for greater nutrition training among physicians, particularly gastroenterologists, is becoming increasingly evident. OBJECTIVES: To determine the nutritional knowledge and perceived nutrition knowledge of gastroenterology fellows. METHODS: Thirty-two gastrointestinal (GI) fellows currently enrolled in a GI fellowship program completed a needs assessment evaluating perceived nutrition knowledge and interest in the areas of nutrition support, assessment, obesity, micro/macronutrients, and nutrition in GI diseases. Additionally, an examination evaluating nutrition knowledge specific to gastroenterology fellows was administered. RESULTS: Thirty-two GI fellows completed the needs assessment. Cronbach alpha of the needs assessment instrument was 0.72, indicating satisfactory internal consistency reliability. GI fellows perceived themselves to have the least knowledge in obesity and micro/macronutrients. They indicated a perceived greater knowledge base in nutrition assessment. The mean total test score was 50.04% (SD=7.84%). Fellows had the highest score in the subscale of nutrition assessment (80.64%; SD=19.05%), which was significantly higher than scores obtained in nutrition support (49.45%; SD=11.98%; P<0.05), micro/macronutrients (37.84%; SD=16.94%; P<0.05), obesity (40.11%; SD=20.00%; P<0.05), and nutrition in GI diseases (65.05%; SD=22.09%; P<0.05). A backward linear regression including hours of nutrition education received during GI fellowship, hours of nutrition education received during medical school, and year of GI fellowship accounted for 22.7% of the variance in test performance (multiple R=0.477). CONCLUSIONS: Gastroenterology fellows think their knowledge of nutrition is suboptimal; objective evaluation of nutrition knowledge in this cohort confirmed this belief. A formal component of nutrition education could be developed in the context of GI fellowship education and continuing medical education as necessary.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.409 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations64
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical GastroenterologySame topicObesity and Health PracticesFrench-language works237,207