Pediatric resident knowledge of transfusion medicine: Results from the <scp>BEST‐TEST3</scp> international education needs assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transfusions are a common intervention within pediatrics and require unique considerations to optimize patient care. Poor knowledge of evidence-based transfusion practice can lead to misuse of transfusion therapy and harm. While there have been assessments of transfusion medicine knowledge of physicians caring for adult patients, there is little data regarding pediatricians. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: Using a published transfusion medicine knowledge exam for internal medicine physicians as a backbone, pediatric transfusion medicine experts, using an iterative process, developed a pediatric-specific examination. Pilot testing and Rasch analysis, a method used in high-stakes testing, was used to validate the exam. The exam and a previously validated survey on transfusion medicine training, attitudes, and perceived ability were administered to pediatric residents. Analysis consisted of descriptive statistics as well as comparisons of exam scores based on survey responses. RESULTS: 330 pediatric residents from 19 sites in 6 countries participated in the study. The vast majority (91%) of residents had obtained blood product consent. The mean exam score was 37.1% (range 9.5%-71.4%) with no statistical differences based on amount or perceived quality of transfusion medicine education or perceived ability. DISCUSSION: A rigorously validated exam has now been developed that can be used to assess pediatric transfusion medicine knowledge. A large international group of pediatric residents performed poorly on the exam demonstrating a pressing need for improved transfusion medicine education to ensure safe and appropriate administration of blood components to infants and children.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".