MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2272226265 · doi:10.1016/j.carj.2015.08.005

Factors Influencing Radiology Residents' Fellowship Training and Practice Preferences in Canada

2016· article· en· W2272226265 on OpenAlex
Philip S. Mok, Linda Probyn, Karen Finlay

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Association of Radiologists Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsHamilton Health SciencesMcMaster UniversitySunnybrook HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMentorshipMedical educationEmployabilityInterventional radiologyRadiologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: The study aimed to examine the postresidency plans of Canadian radiology residents and factors influencing their fellowship choices and practice preferences, including interest in teaching and research. METHODS: Institutional ethics approval was obtained at McMaster University. Electronic surveys were sent to second to fifth-year residents at all 16 radiology residency programs across Canada. Each survey assessed factors influencing fellowship choices and practice preferences. RESULTS: A total of 103 (31%) Canadian radiology residents responded to the online survey. Over 89% from English-speaking programs intended to pursue fellowship training compared to 55% of residents from French-speaking programs. The most important factors influencing residents' decision to pursue fellowship training were enhanced employability (46%) and personal interest (47%). Top fellowship choices were musculoskeletal imaging (19%), body imaging (17%), vascular or interventional (14%), neuroradiology (8%), and women's imaging (7%). Respondents received the majority of their fellowship information from peers (68%), staff radiologists (61%), and university websites (58%). Approximately 59% planned on practicing at academic institutions and stated that lifestyle (43%), job prospects (29%), and teaching opportunities (27%) were the most important factors influencing their decisions. A total of 89% were interested in teaching but only 46% were interested in incorporating research into their future practice. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of radiology residents plan on pursuing fellowship training and often receive their fellowship information from informal sources such as peers and staff radiologists. Fellowship directors can incorporate recruitment strategies such as mentorship programs and improving program websites. There is a need to increase resident participation in research to advance the future of radiology.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.112
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.061
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.245 · 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