Integrating anatomy training into radiation oncology residency: Considerations for developing a multidisciplinary, interactive learning module for adult learners
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
Radiation oncologists require an in-depth understanding of anatomical relationships for modern clinical practice, although most do not receive formal anatomy training during residency. To fulfill the need for instruction in relevant anatomy, a series of four multidisciplinary, interactive learning modules were developed for a cohort of radiation oncology and medical physics residents. Instructional design was based on established learning theories, with the intent of integrating knowledge of specific anatomical regions with radiology and radiation oncology practice. Each session included presentations by a radiologist and a radiation oncologist, as well as hands-on exploration of anatomical specimens with guidance from anatomists. Pre- and post-tests distributed during each session showed significant short-term knowledge retention. According to qualitative surveys and exit interviews, participants felt more comfort' with delineating structures, gross anatomy, and radiograph interpretation at the end of each session. Overall participant experience was positive, and the modules were considered effective for learning radiologic anatomy. Suggestions for future interventions include more time, increased clinical application, additional contouring practice and feedback, and improved coordination between each of the three disciplines. Results and conclusions from this study will be used to inform the design of a future multi-day national workshop for Canadian radiation oncology 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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