Current Status of Nutrition Training in Graduate Medical Education From a Survey of Residency Program Directors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nutrition leaders surmised graduate medical nutrition education was not well addressed because most medical and surgical specialties have insufficient resources to teach current nutrition practice. A needs assessment survey was constructed to determine resources and commitment for nutrition education from U.S. graduate medical educators to address this problem. METHODS: An online survey of 36 questions was sent to 495 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) Program Directors in anesthesia, family medicine, internal medicine, pediatrics, obstetrics/gynecology, and general surgery. Demographics, resources, and open-ended questions were included. There was a 14% response rate (72 programs), consistent with similar studies on the topic. RESULTS: Most (80%) of the program directors responding were from primary care programs, the rest surgical (17%) or anesthesia (3%). Program directors themselves lacked knowledge of nutrition. While some form of nutrition education was provided at 78% of programs, only 26% had a formal curriculum and physicians served as faculty at only 53%. Sixteen programs had no identifiable expert in nutrition and 10 programs stated that no nutrition training was provided. Training was variable, ranging from an hour of lecture to a month-long rotation. Seventy-seven percent of program directors stated that the required educational goals in nutrition were not met. The majority felt an advanced course in clinical nutrition should be required of residents now or in the future. CONCLUSIONS: Nutrition education in current graduate medical education is poor. Most programs lack the expertise or time commitment to teach a formal course but recognize the need to meet educational requirements. A broad-based, diverse universal program is needed for training in nutrition during residency.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".