Pathology Resident Evaluation During the Pandemic: Testing and Implementation of a Comprehensive Online Pathology Exam
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite global digitization, evaluating pathology trainees by paper exams remains the norm. As new social distancing practices require new ways of administering exams, we assessed the viability of an online format for in-house exams from the resident and examiner perspectives. First, pathology residents participated in a practice exam, while staff who were experienced in creating exams were given an online exam-creation demonstration. Subsequently, residents completed a formal 3-hour online exam comprised of multiple-choice, matching, short answer, and whole slide images in place of the paper exam regularly used to evaluate trainees. The experience of the participants was evaluated by surveys. Eighteen residents completed the practice exam; 67% were receptive to the new format and 94% were in favor of moving to digital exams. Seven staff evaluated the digital format and 6 were in favor of it. For the formal online in-house exam, 20 residents participated and 14 completed the survey. Feedback was generally positive with the most common issue being slow-loading digital slides. Exam scores stratified by postgraduate training years in a statistically significant manner, showing positive correlation with resident training level. The online exam format was preferred over paper exams by trainees, with support from both staff and trainees for a permanent transition. Online exams have clear advantages, but technical issues should be addressed before widespread implementation. Our study demonstrates that online exams are a feasible alternative for trainee assessment, especially in socially distanced environments.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it