Preparedness for Clinical Trials in Medical Oncology Subspecialty Training in Canada - A National, Bi-Lingual Questionnaire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There is no standardized approach to clinical trial education for Canadian medical oncology subspecialty training. Canadian medical oncology subspecialty training programs have transitioned to a competency by design (CBD) educational framework. This study aims to determine whether current education practices in medical oncology subspecialty training programs in Canada prepare medical oncology trainees for participating in clinical trials as an investigator. Methods: A national, online, bi-lingual questionnaire to understand exposure to clinical trials and general research in training, self-perceived competence, preparedness, and willingness to participate in clinical trials was conducted. Participants included medical oncology resident trainees and fellow trainees and new-to-practice physicians who have practiced in medical oncology for less than 5 years. All participants had to complete a medical oncology subspecialty training program in Canada. Data were collected from November 2021 to February 2022. Results are presented using descriptive statistics. Results: Out of the 41 respondents (response rate: 15%), most were new physicians (41%), from Ontario (61%). 73% did not have formal training on how to participate in clinical trials as an investigator. 65% rated their competence in clinical trials as fair/poor and 74% rated their preparedness for clinical trials as fair/poor after training. 79% were willing to participate as an investigator in clinical trials after training. A correlation analysis revealed structured or in-clinic teaching in clinical trials trended towards improved self-evaluations of competence, preparedness, and willingness to participate in clinical trials (p > 0.05). Most respondents (56%) sought additional clinical trial education after training. Conclusion: Training in clinical trials is highly variable. After training, most trainees do not feel competent or prepared to participate in clinical trials as an investigator, but they have a willingness to pursue clinical trials. Further assessment into how to produce competent medical oncology clinical trial investigators is warranted.
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 | 0.009 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".