Search

Rationale and Objectives: Radiologists are responsible for interpreting ultrasound (US) images accurately, troubleshooting, aiding sonographers, and advancing technology and research. Despite this, most radiology residents do not feel confident performing US independently. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of an abdominal US scanning rotation and digital curriculum on radiology residents' confidence and skills in performing US., Materials and Methods: All residents who were rotating in pediatric US at our institution for the first time were included (PGY 3-5). Those who agreed to participate were recruited sequentially from July 2018 to 2021 into (A) control and (B) intervention. B had a 1-week US scanning rotation and US digital course. Both groups completed a pre-and post-confidence self-assessment. Pre-and post-skills were objectively assessed by an expert technologist while participants scanned a volunteer. At completion, B completed an evaluation of the tutorial. Descriptive statistics summarized the demographics and closed questions. Pre-and post-test results were compared using paired-T tests, and effect size (ES) with Cohen's d. Open-ended questions were thematically analyzed., Results: PGY-3 and 4 residents participated, and were enrolled in A (N = 39) and B (N = 30). Scanning confidence significantly improved in both groups, with a greater ES in B (p < 0.01). Scanning skills significantly improved in B (p < 0.01) but not A. Eighty per cent of questionnaire responders used the integrative US tutorial and found it helpful. Free text responses were grouped into themes: 1) Technical issues, 2) Didn't complete course, 3) Didn't understand project, 4) Course was detailed and thorough., Conclusions: Our scanning curriculum improved residents' confidence and skills in pediatric US and may encourage consistency in training, thus promoting stewardship of high-quality US., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest None., (Copyright © 2023 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale and Objectives: Artificial intelligence (AI) holds enormous potential for improvements in patient care, efficiency, and innovation in pediatric radiology practice. Although there is a pressing need for a radiology-specific training curriculum and formalized AI teaching, few resources are available. The purpose of our study was to perform a needs assessment for the development of an AI curriculum during pediatric radiology training and continuing education., Materials and Methods: A focus group study using a semistructured moderator-guided interview was conducted with radiology trainees' and attending radiologists' perceptions of AI, perceived competence in interpretation of AI literature, and perceived expectations from radiology AI educational programs. The focus group was audio-recorded, transcribed, and thematic analysis was performed., Results: The focus group was held virtually with seven participants. The following themes we identified: (1) AI knowledge, (2) previous training, (3) learning preferences, (4) AI expectations, and (5) AI concerns. The participants had no previous formal training in AI and variability in perceived needs and interests. Most preferred a case-based approach to teaching AI. They expressed incomplete understanding of AI hindered its clinical applicability and reiterated a need for improved training in the interpretation and application of AI literature in their practice., Conclusion: We found heterogeneity in perspectives about AI; thus, a curriculum must account for the wide range of these interests and needs. Teaching the interpretation of AI research methods, literature critique, and quality control through implementation of specific scenarios could engage a variety of trainees from different backgrounds and interest levels while ensuring a baseline level of competency in AI., (Copyright © 2022 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale and Objectives: Education research has been undervalued in radiology, with few radiology journals having dedicated space for such research and barriers to production including dedicated time, resources, grant funding, and mentorship. As radiologists, we have an opportunity to study education in our unique learning environments and create more effective ways to teach that are grounded in established education theory, solid assessment methodologies, and a focus on merit as well as worth., Materials and Methods: The growth of education research in our field requires a two-pronged approach; We must cultivate leaders in education research from within our specialty, and continue to submit high quality work to radiology journals to increase exposure of the reviewers and readership to education methodologies., Results: We have created the first radiology education research fellowship to this end. This manuscript details the fellowship creation process, the first education research fellow experience, and in-depth analysis of the inaugural year via a qualitative program review., Conclusion: We were successful in supporting an inaugural fellow in attaining the knowledge and skills to become a productive education researcher. Beyond this, the fellowship experience was a catalyst in developing her unique professional identity as an education master which will further raise the status of education research in pediatric radiology., (Copyright © 2020 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale and Objectives: To describe and analyze the pediatric neuroradiology implicit curriculum for general-pediatric and neuro-pediatric radiology fellowship training in order to define specific trainee needs and inform an explicit pediatric neuroradiology curriculum., Materials and Methods: A focus group of pediatric radiologists, pediatric neuroradiologists and fellows was conducted to create a needs assessment questionnaire that focused on training experience, current job, and a list of essential competency items. The questionnaire was distributed to 175 members of the Society for Pediatric Radiology. Data were derived from categorical and continuous survey variables. Using an inductive approach, we analyzed and systematically inspected the data to derive themes regarding trainee needs and how they might inform an explicit curriculum., Results: Fifty-seven pediatric radiologists (response rate of 33%) responded to the survey. Sixty-three percent of respondents were fellowship trained in general pediatric radiology, 21% in pediatric neuroradiology, and 16% in both. In their current jobs, 75% of respondents were responsible for interpreting some pediatric neuroradiology. 50% or greater reported limited or no fellowship instruction in five areas of imaging interpretation: fetal neuroimaging; ear and/or nose and/or throat imaging; head and neck imaging; neuroembryology; neuro-spectroscopy and four areas of technical skills and/or image quality: reducing imaging time; choice of contrast agents; sedation; understanding clinical management pathways., Conclusion: Trainees endorse inadequate training in certain aspects of imaging interpretation and technical skills which are known to remain a significant and vital aspect of pediatric neuroradiology practice, revealing an opportunity to emphasize these aspects in an explicit curriculum and dedicate educational resources towards this cause., (Copyright © 2021 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale and Objectives: Diagnostic radiology resident assessment has evolved from a traditional oral examination to computerized testing. Teaching faculty struggle to reconcile the differences between traditional teaching methods and residents' new preferences for computerized testing models generated by new examination styles. We aim to summarize the collective experiences of senior residents at three different teaching hospitals who participated in case review sessions using a computer-based, interactive, anonymous teaching tool, rather than the Socratic method., Materials and Methods: Feedback was collected from radiology residents following participation in a senior resident case review session using Nearpod, which allows residents to anonymously respond to the teaching material., Results: Subjective resident feedback was uniformly enthusiastic. Ninety percent of residents favor a case-based board review incorporating multiple-choice questions, and 94% favor an anonymous response system., Conclusions: Nearpod allows for inclusion of multiple-choice questions while also providing direct feedback to the teaching faculty, helping to direct the instruction and clarify residents' gaps in knowledge before the Core Examination., (Copyright © 2017 The Association of University Radiologists. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Rationale and Objectives: To investigate the impact of iterative reconstruction in image space (IRIS) on image noise, image quality (IQ), and postprocessing at coronary computed tomography angiography (cCTA) compared to traditional filtered back-projection (FBP)., Materials and Methods: The cCTA results of 50 patients (26 men; 58 ± 15 years, body mass index 31.5 ± 6.7 kg/m²) were investigated using a second-generation dual-source computed tomography system. Scan data were reconstructed with the use of IRIS and FBP algorithms. Two radiologists independently evaluated the reconstructions using automated coronary tree analysis software. Image noise was measured and IQ was rated on a 5-point Likert scale. The number of manual corrections after automated vessel segmentation, the time required to complete segmentation, and the number of missed segments were assessed in both IRIS and FBP reconstructions. Results were compared using paired t-test., Results: IRIS significantly reduced image noise compared to FBP (23.3 ± 8.8 vs. 33.5 ± 13.5 Hounsfield units, P < .001). Subjective IQ improved with IRIS (IRIS 3.2 ± 1.0 vs. FBP 3.0 ± 1.0, P < .05). IRIS decreased the time needed for coronary segmentation from 111.9 ± 40.5 seconds to 95.2 ± 38.2 seconds with FBP (P < .01) and required fewer manual corrections (5.7 ± 3.0 vs. 6.8 ± 3.6, P < .01). The number of missed vessel segments was not significantly different (3.6 ± 1.8 vs. 3.8 ± 1.9, P > .05) between IRIS and FBP, respectively., Conclusions: During cCTA postprocessing, IRIS significantly decreases the time and the number of manual corrections for a complete coronary segmentation compared to FBP. This effect is likely attributable to suppression of image noise by IRIS, which improves the performance of automated vessel segmentation and positively impacts cCTA analysis., (Copyright © 2014 AUR. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)