Views of Radiology Program Directors on the Role of Mentorship in the Training of Radiology Residents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The successful mentoring of resident physicians has been linked to several beneficial outcomes for trainees including increased research productivity, improved career satisfaction, and retention in academics. Female residents may have greater difficulty establishing mentoring relationships than male residents. The purpose of this study was to assess the attitudes of radiology residency program directors toward the subject of mentorship, to determine the prevalence of formal mentoring programs, and to evaluate several issues specifically pertaining to the mentoring of female residents. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An anonymous, voluntary survey was sent to 156 members of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology. The survey assessed views on mentorship during residency training, the potential role of mentorship in resident career development, and the prevalence of mentorship programs in residency programs. Subanalyses evaluated survey responses according to program director sex. RESULTS: Seventy program directors (45%) responded to the survey. The majority of respondents (85%) agreed it is important for residents to have mentors, but only 52% thought that current residents had identified mentors. Compared with male program directors, female program directors differed in their views on the role of mentorship and of the importance of female resident access to female mentors. CONCLUSION: Program directors consider mentoring relationships to be an important resource for resident professional development and a potential resource to increase the proportion of residents pursuing academic careers and positions of leadership. Female residents may have specific mentoring needs that should be explored with further study.
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 | 0.007 | 0.019 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".