Education Research: Neuroradiology Curriculum and Competencies Among Canadian Adult Neurology Residency Programs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background and Objectives</h3> While benefitting from neuroradiologists9 reports, neurologists use their own image interpretation to guide clinical decisions, especially in acute care settings. This calls for robust neuroradiology training in neurology residency, informed by current educational gaps and practices. This study aims to (1) characterize the formal neuroradiology curriculum among Canadian neurology residency programs; (2) assess neurology residents9 neuroimaging interpretation competencies; and (3) define neurology residents9 and program directors9 (PDs) attitudes toward the current curriculum and future directions. <h3>Methods</h3> Anonymous surveys were sent to Canadian neurology residents and PDs, querying neuroradiology learning activities, imaging modalities covered, assessment modalities, perceived residents9 competencies to interpret different modalities, and attitudes regarding neuroradiology training. Residents were asked to interpret 15 neuroimaging cases. Descriptive and inferential analyses were performed. Potential differences in residents9 interpretation success rates by seniority, self-perceived proficiency, and perception of curriculum sufficiency were examined using 2-tailed Welch tests with a 95% CI and Holm-Bonferroni comparison adjustment. Statistics were computed using Excel. <h3>Results</h3> Seventy-eight (32.6%) residents and 11 (68.8%) PDs participated. Ten of 11 PDs reported including a mandatory neuroradiology rotation, and 9/11 offered a formal neuroradiology curriculum covering head CT, head and neck CT angiography (CTA), spine MRI, and head MRI. Programs predominantly offered additional didactic lectures (9/11), teaching cases (8/11), and imaging websites (8/11). Most of the residents agreed with a minimum 1-month long rotation and desired regular didactics from neuroradiologists. Residents favored learning about head MRI (88.5%), head and neck CTA (76.9%), and spine MRI (69.2%). Senior residents9 self-perceived competencies were highest for head CT, head MRI, and head and neck CTA, but lower than PDs9 perception. Senior residents had greater interpretation scores than juniors (84.5% ± 13.2% vs 69.1% ± 19.9%; <i>p</i> < 0.0001). Most PDs (7/11, 63.6%) expressed satisfaction with current curricula vs 32.1% of residents. PDs identified time and educator shortages as main barriers to increased training. <h3>Discussion</h3> Neuroradiology training varies among programs. Residents expressed strong interest in commonly taught modalities, for which they also expressed high self-perceived competencies. However, PDs expressed greater satisfaction than residents with the current training. Leveraging interactions with neuroradiologists and online case-based learning while emphasizing trainees9 interests can enhance postgraduate neuroradiology training for this useful skill.
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 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".