A82 A SURVEY-BASED ASSESSMENT OF RADIATION PROTECTION ATTITUDES AND PRACTICES IN ADVANCED THERAPEUTIC ENDOSCOPY TRAINING CURRICULUMS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Fluoroscopy-assisted endoscopic procedures such as endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) expose patients and physicians to the risks of ionizing radiation, including infertility, cataracts, skin hypersensitivity, hair loss and cancer. Radiation exposure from these procedures can have lasting adverse effects on the health and productivity of gastroenterologists. With attention to “as low as reasonably achievable” (ALARA) principles, recent efforts to minimize radiation use have emphasized the importance of formal radiation protection education, including during advanced therapeutic endoscopy (ATE) training. However, teaching of basic protective measures in radiation safety during ATE training remains often overlooked. Aims We aimed to learn how radiation safety training is delivered in ATE programs across Canada and the US. Identifying the existing training standards and knowledge will help us understand the current gaps in training curriculums and inform future curricular development. Methods Our study was reviewed by the Ottawa Health Science Network Research Ethics Board in September 2023. Surveys were designed and distributed with the REDCap software and sent to ATE trainees (current and recent graduates within the last 3 years) in Canada and Program Directors (PDs) of accredited ATE programs across Canada and the US. Results The survey was completed by 12 trainees and 4 PDs. These are preliminary results and further survey responses are being collected. The majority of trainees (75%) believed it would be very important for their program’s curriculum to include dedicated radiation safety teaching, but most trainees (83.3%) received no such training. Familiarity in optimizing modifiable fluoroscopy parameters to minimize radiation exposure (collimation, gain, magnification, frame rate modification or pulsed fluoroscopy) was variable among trainees (36.4%-81.8%). Seventy-five percent of trainees were unaware of the annual limit for radiation exposure and only 25% believed they were operating within a safe level. Most trainees (90.9%) felt they were given inadequate training to optimally reduce their risk of radiation exposure and 90.9% expressed a desire for further radiation safety training. Despite these findings, only 50% of PDs believed it would be beneficial to offer dedicated radiation safety training as part of their program’s curriculum. Among PDs, 75% did not feel their trainees had the knowledge required to reduce their risk of radiation exposure and all (100%) felt that dedicated training would be useful. Conclusions These findings indicate a need for more robust radiation safety training. Further studies are needed to understand the most effective way to deliver comprehensive radiation safety training to ATE trainees. Funding Agencies None
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".