Trainee Needs in Pediatric Transplant Infectious Diseases Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pediatric transplant infectious diseases (PTID) is emerging as an area of expertise within pediatric infectious diseases. Although guidelines for training in PTID have been published, no prior national survey has been conducted to identify trainee-described needs for instruction in PTID. METHODS: A survey was designed through collaboration between the American Society of Transplantation and the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, to assess trainee exposure, self-knowledge, and self-competency in PTID. RESULTS: Sixty of 169 trainees replied (response rate 35%) with 93% of respondents from centers that performed transplants. Eighty-two percent of trainees were unaware of the recommended curriculum for PTID. Although a majority of trainees (78%) indicated they had received structured teaching in PTID, most (>50%) ranked their knowledge in donor selection, donor-derived infections, and candidate risk assessment as poor or fair. A majority (>50%) also reported their competency in areas regarding pre- and posttransplant guidance as poor or fair. Trainees identified the following strategies to augment their PTID training: additional rotations, teaching by experts, case-based learning, and a reference guide. CONCLUSIONS: This survey highlights significant trainee-identified gaps in PTID knowledge and competency. Limitations include low survey response rate but appears weighted towards centers with transplantation. Suggested strategies can inform the development of learner-specific initiatives and curriculum in PTID.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".