Educational Impact of a Podcast Covering Vitreoretinal Topics: 1-Year Survey Results
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This article aims to determine preferences and demographics for listeners of an ophthalmology podcast, since podcasts are gaining favor for medical education. Methods: The present study used a cross-sectional, online survey as well as Podtrac, Inc and Squarespace, Inc platform analytics to examine perceived educational usefulness of podcasts for listeners. Results: Quarterly episode downloads increased from 684 in first-quarter 2017 to 16 016 in third-quarter 2018. A total of 102 participants completed the survey: 82 (80.4%) men and 68 (66.7%) retina attending physicians or fellows. Most respondents listened to “stay up to date” or “learn more about the field of retina” (67; 65.7% each). Most respondents agreed that podcasts are useful for medical education and result in changes in practice, but not that podcasts have surpassed traditional educational methods. For respondents, there was no difference in perceived usefulness between podcasts and peer-reviewed journals, textbooks, continuing medical education lectures, or national conferences; these did not differ with respondent listening histories. Conclusions: Podcasts are valuable adjuncts for distributing clinically relevant material.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".