Development and Evaluation of a Competency-Based Anatomy Rotation for Diagnostic Radiology Residents during Internship Year: A Canadian Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RATIONALE AND AIM: As medical schools reduce the hours of anatomy teaching, residents in anatomy-intensive residency programs like radiology must independently acquire the anatomy knowledge needed to achieve competency. The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a 4-week competency-based self-directed anatomy rotation for junior residents. METHODS: Seven post-graduate year 1 (PGY-1) radiology residents completed a 4-week rotation of radiologic anatomy. The objectives were developed from standards, senior residents, and expert opinion, and the competency-based curriculum included self-directed modules. Pre-course and post-course tests were administered and test scores were compared using an unpaired t test. In addition, PGY-1 residents completed a course evaluation and survey regarding their anatomy knowledge and anatomy exposure prior to completing the course. RESULTS: Out of the 25 points available, the average pre-test score was 10.79 ± 2.78 (range 8-16.5), and the average post-test score was 21.64 ± 2.23 (range 18.5-25). This difference was statistically significant (P < .0001). The PGY-1 residents reported receiving < 10% of dedicated radiologic anatomy teaching prior to residency and felt unprepared for the anatomy required in residency. Overall, residents felt more confident in looking at images after completing the self-directed radiologic anatomy course. CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates the feasibility of creating a self-directed course for radiology residents that significant improves their anatomy knowledge. Given the trend in medical undergraduate education away from dedicated anatomy teaching, residency programs should consider addressing anatomy education more formally for junior residents to ensure that trainees receive the foundational knowledge required for residency.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".