Assessment of Radiation Safety Training, Practices and Knowledge amongst Canadian Orthopaedic Resident Training Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: There is ample literature demonstrating significant health risks associated with radiation exposure, yet there is no standardized radiation safety training for Canadian orthopaedic surgery residents. This is the first national survey investigating the prevalence of radiation safety training and radiation safety practices in Canadian orthopaedic residency programs. Methods: A nationaln online survey was distributed to orthopaedic residents currently enrolled in a Canadian program from all post-graduate (PGY) levels who were fluent in English or French with a medical doctorate or equivalent training. Fellows, international elective or observer ship students were excluded. Results: Overall response rate across Canada was 41% (n=116). Most respondents (94%, n=102) were concerned about the negative effects of radiation, yet only 11% (n=12) felt confident with their radiation safety knowledge. Of the residents who felt confident in their knowledge, only 42% (n=5) answered all three radiation safety screening questions correctly. Overall, 58% (n=66) of respondents had undergone some form of radiation safety training. Compliance with protective lead was high (92%, n=93) when available, but 82% (n=92) of respondents cited issues accessing properly fitting lead. Only 18% (n=20) of orthopaedic residents reported routinely wearing dosimeters. Conclusion: Limited access to properly fitting protective lead, poor radiation safety knowledge, and lack of routine radiation monitoring could be placing residents at risk for poor health outcomes in the future. These results provide impetus for orthopaedic residency programs across Canada to implement higher safety standards in the form of standardized radiation safety training, routine dosimeter use, improved lead availability, and continued abidance to radiation safety protocols.
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 | 0.022 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".