Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) requires that sponsoring institutions “assure” that the residents' curriculum provides a regular review of the ethical, socioeconomic, medical/legal, and cost-containment issues that affect graduate medical education (GME) and medical practice. Our purpose was to develop a standardized core curriculum for non-interpretive radiology skills that would fulfill the ACGME requirements and that could be easily implemented by all radiology residency program directors. Description: Jointly sponsored by the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) and the American College of Radiology (ACR), an ACR/APDR Working Group developed a curriculum for teaching radiology residents essential non-interpretive skills: job search and contracting issues, business issues in radiology, critical thinking skills, ethics, ACR standards, accreditation programs and appropriateness criteria, service orientation/interpersonal skills, and medical organizational politics. For each of these topics, a videotaped 40-minute presentation by an expert radiologist is presented to a live audience of residents in diagnostic radiology, followed by a 20-minute question-and-answer session. Each videotape is distributed by the ACR, at no cost, to all radiology residency program directors. Taping is done at a professional studio in Bethesda, Maryland. Each curriculum module consists of a videotape with learning objectives, paper copy of the presentation slides, pre- and post-tests, and a program evaluation form. Each program director is asked to have a moderator present the videotape to his or her residents and return the testing and evaluation materials to the ACR. In addition to the videotapes, a series of papers on each topic will be prepared by the presenting radiologists and published in the American Journal of Roentgenology through collaboration and support from the journal's editor-in-chief and the American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS). In response to the ACGME requirement, leaders of the American Board of Radiology (ABR) have added questions on non-clinical skills to the board examination. Consequently, this initiative is of great importance to residents. Discussion: The first videotape, on job search and contracting issues, was released at the end of August 1999, and initial evaluations have been received by the ACR. Residents' mean ratings of the eight Likert-type scale evaluation items ranged from 4.02 to 4.74 (with 5 representing the most positive response). The numbers of responses per item ranged from 169 to 177. The mean rating for overall opinion of the program was 4.4, and 141 respondents thought the module was a useful learning tool (143 respondents answered this yes/no item). The second module, on business aspects of radiology, was released in early November 1999; the third, on ACR standards, accreditation programs, and appropriateness criteria, was released in early December. Subsequent modules are scheduled to be released in February, March, April, and August of 2000. The first article scheduled for the American Journal of Roentgenology—on job search and contracting issues—appeared in December 1999. We feel that this program already shows signs of success as a result of collaboration among program directors, the ACR, the ARRS, and the ABR, and the program fulfills a challenging ACGME requirement that other specialty programs and institutions are struggling with. The design and implementation of this program can serve as a model for other specialty programs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".