Interventional radiology training: a comparison of 5 English-speaking countries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare key characteristics of interventional radiology (IR) training in the UK with four other English-speaking countries (USA, Canada, Australia and New Zealand) and summarise requirements for training. METHODS: Main features examined were career pathway and requirements, examinations required, specific competition for IR and the process of applying for training as an international medical graduate. Data were collected from official governing body publications, literature and personal experience. RESULTS: Several differences were highlighted, including length of training (ranging from 6 to 9 years after medical school), length of IR-specific training (ranging from 1 to 3 years) and examinations required (USA and Canada have additional IR-specific examinations). The level of competition is generally high, in all countries. CONCLUSIONS: With the demand for IR services set to increase over the next few years, it is crucial that more IR specialists are trained to meet this demand. Awareness of training structures in other countries can highlight opportunity and pitfalls, and help ensure the number of highly trained interventional radiologists in the UK continues to grow.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".