Self-reported positive impact of mentored clinical research training is associated with academic success in hematology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Society of Hematology Clinical Research Training Institute (CRTI) is a mentored training program for hematology fellows and junior faculty. Our objective was to determine whether the self-reported impact of CRTI on research retention, career development, and connectedness to hematology investigators was associated with academic success. A survey was distributed in January 2020 to alumni who participated in the program from 2003 to 2019. It focused on the impact of CRTI on retention in research, facilitation of career development, understanding of requirements to succeed, and feelings of connectedness to investigators. These questions were scored on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Outcomes were grants, publications, and invited lectures; these were abstracted from a submitted curriculum vitae. Of 334 eligible alumni, 321 responded (response rate of 96.1%). Of these, 250 (77.9%) agreed that CRTI was instrumental to research retention, 268 (83.5%) agreed that CRTI facilitated career development, 296 (92.2%) agreed that CRTI allowed a better understanding of requirements to succeed in research, and 289 (90.0%) agreed that CRTI increased connectedness to hematology investigators. Those who agreed with these CRTI impacts had significantly more first-author publications. Those who agreed that CRTI was instrumental to retention, facilitated career development, and increased connectedness had significantly more protected time for research. Self-reported perception that CRTI had an impact on research retention, career development, and connectedness to hematology investigators was significantly associated with more publications and percent effort in research. Clinical research training programs should identify and implement approaches to enhance these characteristics.
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 | 0.005 | 0.057 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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".