Musculoskeletal Point-of-Care Ultrasonography Training Among Canadian Postgraduate Rheumatology Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the current state of musculoskeletal point-of-care ultrasonography training among the rheumatology postgraduate programs in Canada and explored the interest in developing a national curriculum. METHOD: A Canadian survey was developed by academic rheumatologists including point-of-care ultrasonography experts and point-of-care ultrasonography non-users. Across Canada, all 15 adult and 3 pediatric rheumatology English and French postgraduate programs were surveyed via Survey Monkey with a standardized questionnaire. RESULTS: The completed response rates were 27% (24/89) for postgraduate year-4 and -5 rheumatology trainees and 61% (11/18) for program directors. Forty-two percent (10/24) of trainees had access to formal point-of-care ultrasonography training, and 67% (16/24) had some form of informal nonstructured exposure. Of all respondents, 87.5% (21/24) trainees and 82% (9/11) program directors agreed or strongly agreed that point-of-care ultrasonography is an important clinical tool in rheumatology. Eighty-nine percent (8/9) of program directors felt that point-of-care ultrasonography should be a formal part of rheumatology training. CONCLUSION: This national survey demonstrates that while musculoskeletal point-of-care ultrasonography is considered an important component of clinical practice, significant training barriers exist. The majority of both trainees and program directors felt that point-of-care ultrasonography should be a formal part of training and would be interested in a national standardized point-of-care ultrasonography curriculum in Canada.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".