P287 The knowledge and skills needed to perform intestinal ultrasound – An international Delphi consensus survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Intestinal Ultrasound (IUS) is a non-invasive modality for monitoring disease activity in inflammatory bowel diseases (IBD). IUS training currently lacks well-defined standards and international consensus on IUS competency criteria. Hence, the aim of this study was to achieve international consensus on what competencies should be expected from a newly certified IUS practitioner. Methods A three-round iterative Delphi process was conducted among 54 IUS experts from across 17 countries. Round 1 was a brainstorming phase with an open-ended question to identify the knowledge and skills that the experts believed a newly certified IUS practitioner should have. The experts’ suggestions were summarised and organised into statements by a Steering Committee. Round 2 allowed the experts to provide comments and to rate the statements on a five-point Likert scale by level of agreement, i.e., how much they agreed or disagreed that a newly certified IUS practitioner should have a specific knowledge or skill. Statements were revised based on the comments and ratings from the experts. In round 3, the experts re-rated the revised statements. Statements achieving the pre-defined consensus-criterion (at least 70% agreement) were included in the final list of consensus statements. Results 858 items were suggested by the experts in first round. Based on the suggested items, 55 statements were summarised and organised into three categories; knowledge, technical skills and interpretation skills. After the second round, two statements were merged and one statement was excluded, leaving 53 revised statements. After the third and final Delphi round, a total of 41 statements were included in the final list of consensus statements. Conclusion We established an international consensus on the knowledge and skills that should be expected from a newly certified IUS practitioner. The inception of these consensus statements is the first step in the process of developing training standards. Educators can utilize these consensus statements to guide them in designing training programs and in evaluating the competencies of trainees before they engage in independent practice.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".