Education of Gastroenterology Trainees
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: The degree of nutrition training in gastrointestinal (GI) fellowship programs has not been reported previously, but it is thought to be inadequate. The aim of this study was to determine GI fellows' exposure to nutrition and to assess nutrition knowledge and practice behaviors before and after completing a live nutrition course. METHODS: This course was geared specifically for GI fellows. Nineteen faculty members from the United States and Canada participated. Electronic surveys were sent to each fellow before and after the course. The curriculum consisted of 20 hours of live education. Curriculum was revised when the precourse survey identified a gap in medical knowledge or practice behavior. Knowledge change was assessed by a 20-question survey before and after the course. RESULTS: Fifty-three fellows participated. Seventy percent reported no inpatient nutrition rotation. Seventy percent had never written a total parenteral nutrition or total enteral nutrition orders, and 12% had treated a home enteral or parenteral patient. Ninety percent had no outpatient nutrition or obesity rotation experience, and 59% had no core nutrition lecture series at their program. Eighty-seven percent had never been assessed for competency in nutrition, and 9% had completed a nutrition research project. Too few mentors, poor exposure, and a predominant focus on endoscopy were reasons cited for not pursing nutrition training. Knowledge change after the course was assessed; the mean correct response rates were 58% before and 88% postcourse. CONCLUSION: There is a considerable deficiency in nutrition training in GI programs. The established American Gastroenterological Association nutrition curriculum guidelines and core competencies are not being fulfilled in most programs. The curriculum of this course resulted in increased knowledge and improved nutrition practice behavior. There is a need for more nutrition training for our GI fellows.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".