Integration of Genomic Medicine in Pathology Resident Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess current pathology resident training in genomic and molecular pathology. METHODS: The Training Residents in Genomics (TRIG) Working Group has developed survey questions for the pathology Resident In-Service Examination (RISE) since 2012. Responses to these questions, as well as knowledge questions, were analyzed. RESULTS: A total of 2,529 residents took the 2019 RISE. Since 2013, there has been an increase in postgraduate year 4 (PGY4) respondents indicating training in genomic medicine (58% to approximately 80%) but still less than almost 100% each year for molecular pathology. In 2019, PGY4 residents indicated less perceived knowledge and ability related to both genomic and traditional molecular pathology topics compared with control areas. Knowledge question results supported this subjective self-appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: The RISE is a powerful tool for assessing the current state and also trends related to resident training in genomic pathology. The results show progress but also the need for improvement in not only genomic pathology but traditional molecular pathology training as well.
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 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".