Faculty Bibliography

PURPOSE/OBJECTIVE:To characterize how the adoption of virtual residency interviews (2020-2021 cycle) has impacted the geographic distribution of radiology resident matches. METHODS:University-based interventional (IR) and diagnostic radiology (DR) residency programs from 2017 to 2021 were identified using a national residency database (FRIEDA). Public applicant data were obtained from official residency program websites. Medical schools and residency programs were categorized by US census regions. Geographic applicant distribution before and after the initiation of virtual interviews was statistically assessed using Chi-square tests. The effect of virtual interviews on the probability of matching within the same geographic region as one's medical school was evaluated with multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS:4358 radiology residents (88% diagnostic, 12% interventional) matched at 102 radiology programs during the study period. 71% (n = 3115 residents) had data available for analysis. 56.3% of DR and 49.3% of IR residents matched in the same geographic region as their medical school. The geographic distribution of applicants who matched at Southern IR residency programs significantly changed after implementation of virtual interviews (p < 0.0001). Virtual interviews did not increase the odds of matching in the same region as one's medical school for IR (OR 1.11, p = 0.08) or DR (OR 1.01, p = 0.58) applicants. Top-20 ranked DR programs had lower odds of in-region matches (OR 0.87, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:With few exceptions, shifting to virtual residency interviews did not significantly affect the geographic distribution of IR or DR residency matches. Top-ranked DR programs match more regionally diverse applicants.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:While the ACGME requires Resident as Teacher (RAT) training, curricula in radiology remain limited. Our study was performed to examine radiology residents (RR) and teaching faculty (TF) perceptions about RAT training. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:In 2021, anonymous online surveys were administered to all RR (53-item) and to all TF (24-item) of a radiology residency program. Content domains included attitudes about RAT training and learning topics. RESULTS:Response rates were 97% (38/39) for RR and 54% (58/107) for TF. Most RR desired training to become better educators to medical students (MS) (81%) and other residents (83%). Seventy-seven percent of RR reported the importance regarding how to give feedback to other learners, while 94% desired formal training on delivering case presentations. While 94% of RR reported that resident feedback was valuable, only 6% reported always giving feedback to MS. Seventy-two percent of RR did not apply at least some best-practices in their reading room teaching. Fifty-nine percent of RR wanted TF to observe their own teaching skills and provide feedback although 70% reported rarely or never receiving TF feedback. Ninety-three percent of TF reported RR should receive RAT training, while 88% reported that feedback of RR to MS was important. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:RR and TF strongly endorsed the need for RAT training. RR anticipate teaching to be an important part of their careers. We identified learning topics and possible gaps regarding how TF are meeting RR needs, which could inform the development of RAT curricula.

To fulfill ACGME requirements, radiology residency programs are required to provide an educational experience that includes a core didactic curriculum for each subspecialty. Although developing and delivering such a core curriculum may not present a problem for large academic programs, it can present a significant challenge for smaller programs with limited faculty in each subspecialty area. Success of the core curriculum lectures series developed for cardiothoracic radiology by the Society of Thoracic Radiology and for musculoskeletal radiology by the International Skeletal Society in collaboration with the Society for Skeletal Radiology prompted the idea of creating a comprehensive core curriculum lecture series encompassing all subspecialties. This paper aims to describe the multi-society collaborative effort entailed in building a curated, on line resident focused core curriculum lecture series detailing the barriers encountered, effects of the COVID-19 pandemic and impact of the finished project.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The Covid-19 pandemic ushered a sudden need for residency programs to develop innovative socially distant and remote approaches to effectively promote their program. Here we describe our experience using the social virtual reality (VR) platform Mozilla Hubs for the pre-interview social during the 2020-2021 radiology residency virtual recruitment season, provide results of a survey sent to assess applicants' attitudes towards the VR pre-interview social, and outline additional use-cases for the emerging technology. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:A VR Meeting Hall dedicated to the pre-interview social was designed in Mozilla Hubs. To assess applicants' impressions of the Mozilla Hubs pre-interview social, applicants were sent an optional web-based survey. Survey respondents were asked to respond to a series of eleven statements using a five-point Likert scale of perceived agreement: Strongly Agree, Agree, Neutral, Disagree, Strongly Disagree. Statements were designed to gauge applicants' attitudes towards the Mozilla Hubs pre-interview social and its usefulness in helping them learn about the residency program, particularly in comparison with pre-interview socials held on conventional video conferencing software (CVCS). RESULTS:Of the 120 residency applicants invited to the Mozilla Hubs pre-interview social, 111 (93%) attended. Of these, 68 (61%) participated in the anonymous survey. Most applicants reported a better overall experience with Mozilla Hubs compared to CVCS (47/68, 69%), with 10% (7/68) reporting a worse overall experience, and 21% (14/68) neutral. Most applicants reported the Mozilla Hubs pre-interview social allowed them to better assess residency culture than did pre-interview socials using CVCS (41/68, 60%). Seventy-two percent of applicants reported that the Mozilla Hubs pre-interview social positively impacted their decision to strongly consider the residency program (49/68). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Radiology residency applicants overall preferred a pre-interview social hosted on a social VR platform, Mozilla Hubs, compared to those hosted on CVCS. Applicants reported the use of a social VR platform reflected positively on the residency and positively impacted their decision to strongly consider the program.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Meeting the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education scholarly activity requirement can be challenging for residents. Time to engage in research is one of the commonly perceived barriers. To address this barrier, our residency program implemented a focused academic time initiative of a half day per week that can be taken while on rotation. At the end of the third year of implementation, we assessed the effectiveness of this initiative on the productivity of resident scholarly activity. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:Radiology resident scholarly activity submitted to the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education web-based Accreditation Data System were reviewed and compared to the three academic years before (July 1, 2012-June 30, 2015) and three academic years after (July 1, 2015-June 30, 2018) implementing the focused research time. The types of scholarly activity, which consisted of peer-reviewed journal publications, national conference presentations, and textbook chapters were captured. PubMed-Indexed for MEDLINE (PMID) number was used to confirm publications. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze the data. RESULTS:The total number of residents per year, ranging between 37-40, was similar between the academic years 2012-2015 (116 residents total) and 2015-2018 (117 residents total). After initiating focused academic time, the number of publications increased from 45 to 75 (67%), presentations at conferences increased from 112 to 128 (14%), the number of textbook chapters increased from 4 to 15 (275%), and total number of first author publications by residents increased from 21 to 28 (33% increase). CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Longitudinal focused academic time of half a day per week increased productivity of scholarly activity among our radiology residents.

Background Previous studies suggest that use of artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms as diagnostic aids may improve the quality of skeletal age assessment, though these studies lack evidence from clinical practice. Purpose To compare the accuracy and interpretation time of skeletal age assessment on hand radiograph examinations with and without the use of an AI algorithm as a diagnostic aid. Materials and Methods In this prospective randomized controlled trial, the accuracy of skeletal age assessment on hand radiograph examinations was performed with (n = 792) and without (n = 739) the AI algorithm as a diagnostic aid. For examinations with the AI algorithm, the radiologist was shown the AI interpretation as part of their routine clinical work and was permitted to accept or modify it. Hand radiographs were interpreted by 93 radiologists from six centers. The primary efficacy outcome was the mean absolute difference between the skeletal age dictated into the radiologists' signed report and the average interpretation of a panel of four radiologists not using a diagnostic aid. The secondary outcome was the interpretation time. A linear mixed-effects regression model with random center- and radiologist-level effects was used to compare the two experimental groups. Results Overall mean absolute difference was lower when radiologists used the AI algorithm compared with when they did not (5.36 months vs 5.95 months; P = .04). The proportions at which the absolute difference exceeded 12 months (9.3% vs 13.0%, P = .02) and 24 months (0.5% vs 1.8%, P = .02) were lower with the AI algorithm than without it. Median radiologist interpretation time was lower with the AI algorithm than without it (102 seconds vs 142 seconds, P = .001). Conclusion Use of an artificial intelligence algorithm improved skeletal age assessment accuracy and reduced interpretation times for radiologists, although differences were observed between centers. Clinical trial registration no. NCT03530098 © RSNA, 2021 Online supplemental material is available for this article. See also the editorial by Rubin in this issue.

RATIONAL AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:Radiology has one of the lowest female representation rates in medicine and recruiting female residents is a challenge for some residency programs. There is limited understanding of gender differences among residency applicants during program selection. The study objective is to investigate which program factors were considered most important by radiology residency applicants and to assess for differences by gender, race and ethnicity. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:An anonymous survey was distributed electronically to diagnostic and interventional radiology residency programs in the US and Canada via the Association of Program Coordinators in Radiology (APCR). Residents were asked to evaluate the importance of 30 factors during evaluation of residency programs using a 5-point Likert scale (1 = not important, 5 = extremely important). RESULTS:370 residents and 1 fellow completed the survey. Of the respondents, 269 were male (72.5%) and 101 were female (27.2%). The most important factors to respondents during program selection were program culture (4.42), geographic location (4.17), fellowship placement (4.14), and imaging and/or procedure volume (3.98). There was a significant difference between male and female respondents in the importance of program culture (p = 0.002), composition of current residents (p = 0.007), percentage of current female residents (p < 0.0001), program size (p = 0.047), call schedule (p = 0.025), percentage of female faculty (p < 0.0001), faculty ethnic and racial diversity (p < 0.0001), resident ethnic and racial diversity (p < 0.0001), which female respondents ranked more highly. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:Applicants consider many factors during residency program selection. Program culture, geographic location, fellowship placement and imaging and/or procedural volume were most important. There were significant differences by gender, race and ethnicity in importance of several factors.

Models for diagnostic reasoning in radiology have been based on the observed behaviors of experienced radiologists but have not directly focused on the thought processes of novices as they improve their accuracy of image interpretation. By collecting think-aloud verbal reports, the current study was designed to investigate differences in specific thought processes between medical students (novices) as they learn and radiologists (experts), so that we can better design future instructional environments. Seven medical students and four physicians with radiology training were asked to interpret and diagnose pediatric elbow radiographs where fracture is suspected. After reporting their diagnosis of a case, they were given immediate feedback. Participants were asked to verbalize their thoughts while completing the diagnosis and while they reflected on the provided feedback. The protocol analysis of their verbalizations showed that participants used some combination of four processes to interpret the case: gestalt interpretation, purposeful search, rule application, and reasoning from a prior case. All types of processes except reasoning from a prior case were applied significantly more frequently by experts. Further, gestalt interpretation was used with higher frequency in abnormal cases while purposeful search was used more often for normal cases. Our assessment of processes could help guide the design of instructional environments with well-curated image banks and analytics to facilitate the novice's journey to expertise in image interpretation.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES/OBJECTIVE:The educational value of the daily resident readout, a vital component of resident training, has been markedly diminished due to a significant decrease in imaging volume and case mix diversity. The goal of this study was to create a "simulated" daily readout (SDR) to restore the educational value of the daily readout. MATERIALS AND METHODS/METHODS:To create the SDR the following tasks were performed; selection of cases for a daily worklist for each resident rotation, comprising a combination of normal and abnormal cases; determination of the correct number of cases and the appropriate mix of imaging modalities for each worklist; development of an "educational" environment consisting of separate "instances" of both our Picture Archive Communication System and reporting systems; and the anonymization of all of the cases on the worklists. Surveys of both residents and faculty involved in the SDR were performed to assess its effectiveness. RESULTS:Thirty-two residents participated in the SDR. The daily worklists for the first 20 days of the SDR included 3682 cases. An average of 480 cases per day was dictated by the residents. Surveys of the residents and the faculty involved in the SDR demonstrated that both agreed that the SDR effectively mimics a resident's daily work on rotations and preserves resident education during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 crisis. CONCLUSION/CONCLUSIONS:The development of the SDR provided an effective method of preserving the educational value of the daily readout experience of radiology residents, despite severe decreases in imaging exam volume and case mix diversity during the Coronavirus Disease 2019 pandemic.