MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2316073770 · doi:10.1017/s1460396913000459

The perception of radiation therapy students on a clinical specialist radiation therapist-led breast workshop

2013· article· en· W2316073770 on OpenAlexafffund
Grace Lee, Kieng Tan, Robert Dinniwell

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Radiotherapy in Practice · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAdvances in Oncology and Radiotherapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsRadiation TherapistLikert scaleBreast cancerMedicineRadiation treatment planningPerceptionMedical educationRadiation therapyPsychologyMedical physicsCancerRadiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Purpose The clinical specialist radiation therapist (CSRT) is a radiation therapist with advanced site-specific clinical skills and knowledge that can be utilised to enhance the education of radiation therapy (RT) students within an academic setting. The aim of this study is to assess the students’ perception of the teaching provided by a CSRT within a case-based learning workshop tailored for breast cancer. Methods A workshop that followed the patient's RT treatment pathway (consultation, CT simulation, treatment planning and delivery) was led by a breast-site CSRT to 16 third-year students. Following completion of the workshop, a 4-point Likert-scale survey was distributed to explore the students’ didactic and clinical experiences and their general perceptions of the CSRT's contribution to their breast-site module education. Results The median didactic experience reported by the students were ‘a lot’ in patient care and ‘some’ in treatment unit and treatment planning. In contrast, the students reported less clinical experience; the median response for patient care and treatment unit experience was ‘a little’ and ‘none’ for treatment planning. All 13 students who responded to the survey agreed that the CSRT enhanced their understanding of the material. The students felt engaged in the CSRT-lecture and perceived it as value added. The majority of the students (92%) indicated the CSRT to be a useful learning resource in their training and education. Additional comments provided by the students noted the utility of the CSRT-led lecture in consolidating their knowledge of the breast cancer treatment planning and delivery and suggest further expansion of this learning format to other disease sites. Conclusions Third-year RT students commencing their clinical practicum will have had a greater proportion of their learning from didactic teaching as opposed to clinical experience. In transitioning to their final year, the focus of the curriculum shifts to the application of theory into the clinical environment. The students perceived the CSRT to be a useful resource to enhance their understanding of the breast-site module and their feedback supports the instructional quality and effectiveness of the CSRT in this clinical teaching role.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.888
Threshold uncertainty score0.571

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.426 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Radiotherapy in PracticeSame topicAdvances in Oncology and RadiotherapyFrench-language works237,207