Transfusion knowledge of medical and surgical specialty board residents: a cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study was conducted to assess transfusion knowledge between different specialty board residents and to identify areas of need for further education. BACKGROUND: Physicians' knowledge of transfusion medicine (TM) is critical for patients' safety. Many clinicians who are involved in day-to-day transfusion practice have little or no formal training in TM. There are no studies to assess physician's TM knowledge locally. METHODS: A comprehensive anonymous survey was developed to assess baseline TM knowledge of all the residents. The survey is composed of different sections, including a questionnaire on resident's demographics, resident's self-reflection on their TM knowledge and 30 multiple choice questions addressing basic and clinical TM knowledge in two major domains: component selection and transfusion practice and transfusion safety and transfusion reactions. Finally, the residents' opinion on educational needs was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 130 residents were surveyed. The lowest score obtained among the two major domains assessed was in the transfusion safety and transfusion reaction domain, with a mean score of 4·34 of 15 (SD ± 3·27). The mean score obtained on component selection and transfusion practice was 7·1 of 15 (SD ± 3·74). A substantial proportion of the residents (74·7%) admitted minimal baseline knowledge in the field of TM. Finally, 94·5% of the residents admitted the need for more education during residency, whereas 49·5% thought additional education is required during the first year of practice. CONCLUSION: This survey shows serious TM knowledge deficiency and indicates the need for additional education among all physicians during training.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".