Acing the Fundamentals of Radiology: An Online Series for Medical Students and Interns
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
PURPOSE: The current undergraduate radiology education predominantly integrates radiology with other disciplines during preclerkship years and is often taught by nonradiologists. Early exposure to radiology and profound understanding of scientific fundamentals of imaging modalities and techniques are essential for a better understanding and interest in the specialty. Furthermore, the COVID-19 pandemic-related impact on in-person medical education aggravated the need for alternative virtual teaching initiatives to provide essential knowledge to medical students. METHODS: The authors designed an online 7-session course on the principles of imaging modalities for medical students and fresh graduates in the United States and abroad. The course was delivered online and taught by radiologists from different US institutions. Pretests and posttests were delivered before and after each session, respectively, to assess change in knowledge. At the end of the course, a survey was distributed among students to collect their assessment and feedback. RESULTS: A total of 162 students and interns initially enrolled in the program by completing a sign-up interest form. An average of 65 participants attended each live session, with the highest attendance being 93 live attendees. An average of 44 attendees completed both the pretest and posttest for each session. There was a statistically significant increase in posttest scores compared with pretest scores ( P < 0.01) for each session; on average, the posttest scores were 48% higher than the pretest scores. A total of 84 participants answered the end-of-course survey. A total of 11% of the respondents described themselves as first year, 17% as second year, 18% as third year, 21% as fourth year, and 33% as "other." Attendees were enrolled in medical schools across 21 different countries with 35% of the respondents studying medicine in the United States. More than 76% of the respondents stated that they "strongly agree" that the program increased their understanding of radiology, increased their interest in radiology, and would be useful in their clinical practice in the future. Eighty-three percent of the respondents stated that they "strongly agree" that "this course was a worthwhile experience." Particularly, more than 84% of the respondents stated that among the most important components in enhancing their understanding of radiology were "the interpretation of normal imaging" and "interpretation of clinical cases." Ninety-two percent of the respondents stated that "the amount of effort to complete the requirements for this program was just right." Participants were also asked to rate each of the 8 sessions using the following scale: poor = 1 point, fair = 2, good = 3, and excellent = 4. The average rating for all 8 sessions was 3.61 points (SD = 0.55), which translates to 96% of the sessions being rated good or excellent. Eighty percent of the participants reported that the topics presented in the program were "excellent and clinically important to learn," and 20% of the participants reported that the topics presented were "good and somewhat important to learn." The participants were asked to evaluate their confidence regarding basic radiology skills before and after the program using the following scale: not confident at all = 1 point, somewhat confident = 2, moderately confident = 3, and very confident = 4. Figure 2 summarizes the responses of the participants. CONCLUSIONS: An online course to teach the fundamentals of imaging modalities could be delivered through a webinar format to medical students and interns in several countries to address the potential gaps in radiology education, therefore increasing their understanding of the different imaging modalities and their proper use in medicine.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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