Most students have experience making radiographs prior to veterinary school but have limited radiation safety training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of radiation for the diagnosis of various medical conditions is ubiquitous in veterinary medicine, and manual restraint of a patient during X-ray exposure has become commonplace. Many prospective veterinary students have been involved with radiographs in general practice prior to veterinary school. Their experiences and level of safety training are largely unknown. This prospective survey study involved two web-based questionnaires that were used to evaluate the experiences, knowledge, and attitudes toward radiation and how these changed following a radiation safety lecture as part of their first-year curriculum. The questionnaires were distributed to 122 first-year veterinary students before and after this lecture. All participating students (100%) had worked in a veterinary hospital prior to admission to veterinary school and 79% were involved in making radiographs; however, only 28% reported receiving radiation safety training. The content of the safety training reported was variable. After the radiation safety lecture, students were more likely to report that the radiation safety training they had received was useful, but fewer students reported feelings of safety when using radiation. Despite most students being involved with radiation in practice, few had received radiation safety training, as hypothesized. Contrary to our second hypothesis, a single lecture did significantly improve knowledge and attitudes in several, but not all, instances. Importantly, once students gained knowledge regarding radiation, they placed more importance on its safe use. These results suggest that in-clinic training of students in radiation safety is insufficient and that lecture-based training is useful for certain concepts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".