Meeting the Motility Educational Requirements of the Gastroenterology Trainee in the 21st Century
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Gastrointestinal (GI) motility and functional disorders comprise over two-third of referrals to GI specialists yet training programs are disproportionately focused on endoscopy, inflammatory bowel disease and liver disease. Trainees at many centres receive minimal or no formal training in motility disorders and have little or no exposure to motility testing. Our purpose was to develop an educational intervention to address this learning need. METHODS: We designed a formal training program comprised of didactic sessions, workshops and hands-on motility sessions with live demonstrations designed to be held over the course of a weekend. Faculty for the course were experienced GI motility experts from across Canada. Resident trainees from all Canadian GI fellowship programs were invited to attend. Pre- and post-tests were administered to measure the baseline learning needs and the impact of the program. Course evaluations were completed by attendees. RESULTS: Three annual courses were offered over the past 3 years. Both adult and paediatric gastroenterology trainees attended the programs. The majority of training programs from Canada were represented. Baseline testing of attendees revealed a fundamental lack of understanding of GI motility concepts and their clinical implications. Postcourse test scores demonstrated a significant improvement in motility knowledge. Course evaluations of the content and faculty presentations received uniformly positive reviews. CONCLUSIONS: There is a pervasive lack of clinical knowledge of GI motility among Canadian GI subspecialty trainees. A focused weekend intensive course is one step in addressing this learning need.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".