MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408822226 · doi:10.1017/cts.2024.863

210 Addressing burnout in radiologists: Causes, impact on patient care, and potential solutions

2025· article· en· W4408822226 on OpenAlexaff
Pardaman Setia, Linette Penney, Vedant Shukla

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical and Translational Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiology practices and education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBurnoutPatient careMedicinePsychologyNursingClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives/Goals: This study objective is to evaluate the prevalence and risk factors of burnout in practicing radiologists, with a focus on personal as well as systemic factors. It aims to identify and assess the existing strategies to mitigate burnout, enhance radiologist performance, and improve the quality of patient care. Methods/Study Population: The present study is a systematic review that summarizes existing literature on burnout in radiology, examining its prevalence, risk factors, and effect on diagnostic accuracy, decision-making, and job satisfaction. The review will synthesize validated evidence for emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and professional fulfillment. The review discusses trends and solutions that have emerged from analysis of data within differing countries, subspecialties, and career stages, focusing on elevated risk of burnout in radiologists. It also assesses downstream effects on patient care quality such as missed diagnoses and increased medical errors. The review also discusses potential strategies for mitigating these negative effects on healthcare delivery. Results/Anticipated Results: The anticipated results of this review are expected to reveal significant variability in burnout rates across radiology subspecialties and practice settings, with prevalence ranging from 33% to 88% (Fawzy et al., 2023). Emotional exhaustion and depersonalization emerge as the most reported symptoms as consistently highlighted in previous studies. Major contributors such as workload, administrative burdens, and technological isolation (e.g., remote work and reduced face-to-face interaction) are anticipated. Radiologists in high-demand areas like interventional radiology and those in private practice may show higher burnout levels than those in academic settings. Protective factors, like exercise, supportive environments, and work-life balance, are expected to reduce burnout levels. Discussion/Significance of Impact: This study calls attention to the importance of addressing radiologist burnout as a key institutional priority. Early and effective interventions are essential for improving job satisfaction, reducing medical errors resulting in enhanced patient care. Addressing burnout is crucial for maintaining a sustainable and effective radiology workflow.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.086
GPT teacher head0.462
Teacher spread0.376 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical and Translational ScienceSame topicRadiology practices and educationFrench-language works237,207