American Board Of Radiology Examination Research Articles

Performance of ChatGPT on a Radiology Board-style Examination: Insights into Current Strengths and Limitations.

Background ChatGPT is a powerful artificial intelligence large language model with great potential as a tool in medical practice and education, but its performance in radiology remains unclear. Purpose To assess the performance of ChatGPT on radiology board-style examination questions without images and to explore its strengths and limitations. Materials and Methods In this exploratory prospective study performed from February 25 to March 3, 2023, 150 multiple-choice questions designed to match the style, content, and difficulty of the Canadian Royal College and American Board of Radiology examinations were grouped by question type (lower-order [recall, understanding] and higher-order [apply, analyze, synthesize] thinking) and topic (physics, clinical). The higher-order thinking questions were further subclassified by type (description of imaging findings, clinical management, application of concepts, calculation and classification, disease associations). ChatGPT performance was evaluated overall, by question type, and by topic. Confidence of language in responses was assessed. Univariable analysis was performed. Results ChatGPT answered 69% of questions correctly (104 of 150). The model performed better on questions requiring lower-order thinking (84%, 51 of 61) than on those requiring higher-order thinking (60%, 53 of 89) (P = .002). When compared with lower-order questions, the model performed worse on questions involving description of imaging findings (61%, 28 of 46; P = .04), calculation and classification (25%, two of eight; P = .01), and application of concepts (30%, three of 10; P = .01). ChatGPT performed as well on higher-order clinical management questions (89%, 16 of 18) as on lower-order questions (P = .88). It performed worse on physics questions (40%, six of 15) than on clinical questions (73%, 98 of 135) (P = .02). ChatGPT used confident language consistently, even when incorrect (100%, 46 of 46). Conclusion Despite no radiology-specific pretraining, ChatGPT nearly passed a radiology board-style examination without images; it performed well on lower-order thinking questions and clinical management questions but struggled with higher-order thinking questions involving description of imaging findings, calculation and classification, and application of concepts. © RSNA, 2023 See also the editorial by Lourenco et al and the article by Bhayana et al in this issue.

Dr. Edith H. Quimby: A pioneering medical physicist and educator with outstanding contributions in radiation dosimetry

Dr. Edith H. Quimby: A pioneering medical physicist and educator with outstanding contributions in radiation dosimetry

The Evolving Status of Fellowships and Mini-Fellowships in Diagnostic Radiology: A Survey of Program Directors and Chief Residents

Recent changes in radiology fellowships include musculoskeletal radiology adopting a match system, interventional radiology transitioning away from diagnostic radiology to offer direct-entry programs, and a common fellowship application timeline created by the Society for Chairs of Academic Radiology Departments (SCARD). The concept of mini-fellowships has also emerged with the elimination of the oral American Board of Radiology examinations that had been administered in the final year of residency training prior to 2014. This paper seeks to assess the opinions of fellowship program directors, residency program directors, and chief residents regarding these recent changes. This is a cross-sectional study using a web-based survey posed to fellowship program directors, residency program directors, and chief residents in 2020. Questions sought to explore current attitudes toward the following topics: (1) a common fellowship application timeline; (2) a common fellowship match; and (3) the status of mini-fellowships in diagnostic radiology. In addition, the number of fellowship positions for each subspecialty was estimated using subspecialty society directories, Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) data, and individual program websites. Deidentified responses were collected electronically and aggregated. The three respondent groups preferred a common fellowship application timeline at rates of 67% among fellowship program directors, 80% residency program directors, and 74% residents. A common match system across all subspecialties was preferred at rates of 50% fellowship program directors, 74% residency program directors, and 26% chief residents. There was widespread reported compliance with the SCARD fellowship timeline policy. Subspecialty programs using the match system reported interviewing greater numbers of applicants per position. Fellowship directors and chief residents reported that the most common duration of mini-fellowship experiences was 2 to 3 months. There is a division between chief residents and program directors regarding the preference for a common radiology match. Adopting a radiology-wide fellowship match would increase the number of interviews required. The SCARD fellowship timeline policy has been successful, and there is support across stakeholders regarding the common timeline. Mini-fellowships are highly variable in length and structure.

Does the Oral “Mock Board” Examination Still Have a Role as a Training Tool?

The American Board of Radiology has adopted a new standardized board examination and the traditional oral examination has been abandoned. Although many programs have changed their educational efforts to reflect the new test format, some faculty members and residents have expressed a desire to keep an oral examination as a component of education and evaluation in radiology residency programs. An oral comprehensive examination including all the appropriate subspecialties was administered to each second year and third year resident in our training program by faculty members. Both the resident examinees and faculty examiners were surveyed after the examination to gauge the perceived value of the experience. Residents were divided in their perceptions of the fairness and utility of an oral examination as a tool to aid in board preparation and as an assessment of their knowledge and communication skill. Faculty members were universal in their endorsement of the oral examination and suggested continued use of the technique. Residents and faculty members have differing perceptions of an oral examination delivered during training to assess knowledge and communication skill. The value of an oral examination in providing actionable feedback to trainees and the possibility of detecting struggling residents made it useful in our training program, and it thus it has been implemented for future years. Whether resident performance measured by this technique is predictive of success on American Board of Radiology examinations remains unclear.

Practical Implications for an Effective Radiology Residency Quality Improvement Program for Milestone Assessment

Utilization of a radiology resident-specific quality improvement (QI) program and curriculum based on the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones can enable a program's assessment of the systems-based practice component and prepare residents for QI implementation post graduation. This article outlines the development process, curriculum, QI committee formation, and resident QI project requirements of one institution's designated radiology resident QI program. A method of mapping the curriculum to the ACGME milestones and assessment of resident competence by postgraduate year level is provided. Sample projects, challenges to success, and lessons learned are also described. Survey data of current trainees and alumni about the program reveal that the majority of residents and alumni responders valued the QI curriculum and felt comfortable with principles and understanding of QI. The most highly valued aspect of the program was the utilization of a resident education committee. The majority of alumni responders felt the residency quality curriculum improved understanding of QI, assisted with preparation for the American Board of Radiology examination, and prepared them for QI in their careers. In addition to the survey results, outcomes of resident project completion and resident scholarly activity in QI are evidence of the success of this program. It is hoped that this description of our experiences with a radiology resident QI program, in accordance with the ACGME milestones, may facilitate the development of successful QI programs in other diagnostic radiology residencies.

The American Society for Radiation Oncology's 2015 Core Physics Curriculum for Radiation Oncology Residents

The American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) Physics Core Curriculum Subcommittee (PCCSC) has updated the recommended physics curriculum for radiation oncology resident education to improve consistency in teaching, intensity, and subject matter. The ASTRO PCCSC is composed of physicists and physicians involved in radiation oncology residency education. The PCCSC updated existing sections within the curriculum, created new sections, and attempted to provide additional clinical context to the curricular material through creation of practical clinical experiences. Finally, we reviewed the American Board of Radiology (ABR) blueprint of examination topics for correlation with this curriculum. The new curriculum represents 56hours of resident physics didactic education, including a 4-hour initial orientation. The committee recommends completion of this curriculum at least twice to assure both timely presentation of material and re-emphasis after clinical experience. In addition, practical clinical physics and treatment planning modules were created as a supplement to the didactic training. Major changes to the curriculum include addition of Fundamental Physics, Stereotactic Radiosurgery/Stereotactic Body Radiation Therapy, and Safety and Incidents sections, and elimination of the Radiopharmaceutical Physics and Dosimetry and Hyperthermia sections. Simulation and Treatment Verification and optional Research and Development in Radiation Oncology sections were also added. A feedback loop was established with the ABR to help assure that the physics component of the ABR radiation oncology initial certification examination remains consistent with this curriculum. The ASTRO physics core curriculum for radiation oncology residents has been updated in an effort to identify the most important physics topics for preparing residents for careers in radiation oncology, to reflect changes in technology and practice since the publication of previous recommended curricula, and to provide practical training modules in clinical radiation oncology physics and treatment planning. The PCCSC is committed to keeping the curriculum current and consistent with the ABR examination blueprint.

In Memoriam: Gerald D. Dodd, Jr., MD (1922-2015): Champion of Screening Mammography

Screening mammography has been one of the greatest scientific advancements of our time. Numerous randomized trials and service screening studies conducted in Europe have shown that periodic screening can reduce deaths from breast cancer in women aged 40 years and older by as much as 50%. A greater than 30% reduction in the breast cancer death rate in the United States since 1980 has been largely due to the widespread application of high-quality mammographic technique and interpretation. For this accomplishment, women in our country can be grateful to Gerald D. Dodd, Jr., MD, who passed away in Houston, Texas, on September 25, 2015, at age 92. Through his leadership in organizations such as the American Cancer Society (ACS), the American College of Radiology (ACR), the American Board of Radiology (ABR), and the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Dodd played an indispensable role in the adoption of technical quality requirements by the ACR and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA), the development of interpretive descriptors used in the ACR Breast ImagingReporting and Data System (ACR BI-RADS), the incorporation of breast imaging on ABR examinations, and the initiation of ACS screening mammography guidelines. During much of his remarkably productive career, Dodd was chairman of the Division of Diagnostic Imaging at The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center in Houston, Texas. He was the imaging editor for Breast Diseases: A YEAR BOOK Quarterly from its inception in 1990 until 2005, when at age 82, he recommended to S. Eva Singletary, MD, then editor-in-chief, that I assume his position. To me, Gerry Dodd was a long-time friend, a trusted mentor, and an inspiration. Dodd was born in Oaklyn, New Jersey, on November 18, 1922. He attended Blair Academy preparatory school, participating with distinction in football, wrestling, and boxing. He received a football scholarship to Cornell University but chose Lafayette College instead, intending to pursue a career in medicine. World War II interrupted his studies, and he joined the U.S. Navy as a hospital corpsman. His commanding officer recommended him to the Officer Training Program through Swarthmore College in suburban Philadelphia, and he was commissioned with the rank of ensign. After the war, he returned to Lafayette, graduating in 1945. In 1946, he married his beloved wife of 68 years, Helen Glenzing. He received his medical degree from Thomas Jefferson Medical College in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in 1947 and was elected to the Alpha Omega Alpha Honor Medical Society. (Many years later, he was selected for the prestigious Thomas Jefferson University Alumni Achievement Award.) In 1948, he interned at Fitzgerald Mercy Hospital in Darby, Pennsylvania. His ensuing residency in radiology at Thomas Jefferson Medical College, under Dr. Paul Swenson as chairman, ran from 1948 to 1950. During the Korean War, he joined the U.S. Air Force, rising to the rank of captain, while serving as the chief of radiology at Mitchell Air Force Base in New York. Dodd began his highly productive career as an assistant professor at Thomas Jefferson Medical College (1952-1955). He then relocated to MD Anderson, where he served as section head of diagnostic imaging from 1955 to 1961. During that time, Dodd assigned Robert L. Egan, then a resident in radiology, the task of developing a mammographic technique for the staging of breast cancer. Egan’s landmark accomplishment demonstrated that mammography can reduce errors in preoperative diagnosis and reveal unsuspected lesions. Disappointed by the lack of support for diagnostic radiology at MD Anderson at that time, Dodd returned to Jefferson in the spring of 1961 as chief of diagnosis and director of residency training. Under the leadership of Dodd and Dr. Philip J. Hodes, chairman of radiology, the department experienced a dramatic growth in the resident program. During the 1950s and 1960s, Philadelphia was a leading center for clinical studies in the emerging field of breast imaging. Dr. Jacob Gershon-Cohen at Albert Einstein Medical Center was developing improved mammographic techniques, correlating the mammographic, pathologic, and clinical findings of breast diseases, and investigating the value of mammography for screening. At Jefferson, Dodd coauthored a cooperative study of mammography at 7 Philadelphia teaching hospitals, initiated byDr. Eugene P. Pendergrass, chairman of radiology at the University of Pennsylvania. Their results confirmed that mammography could detect clinically unsuspected breast cancer. While at Jefferson, Dodd was the first in the country to develop a preoperative needle localization technique for nonpalpable breast lesions. This major technical innovation increased the accuracy of excisional biopsy while decreasing postoperative deformity. In 1964, Dodd and John D. Wallace, a medical physicist at Jefferson, began to assess the relationship between breast tumors and mammographic vascularity. Their studies led them to evaluate thermography, a technique that depicts the infrared radiation emitted by the superficial vasculature of the breast, as a potential screening modality.

SU‐B‐213‐06: Development of ABR Examination Questions

The North American medical physics community validates the education received by medical physicists and the clinical qualifications for medical physicists through accreditation of educational programs and certification of medical physicists. Medical physics educational programs (graduate education and residency education) are accredited by the Commission on Accreditation of Medical Physics Education Programs (CAMPEP), whereas medical physicists are certified by several organizations, the most familiar of which is the American Board of Radiology (ABR). In order for an educational program to become accredited or a medical physicist to become certified, the applicant must meet certain specified standards set by the appropriate organization.In this Symposium, representatives from both CAMPEP and the ABR will describe the process by which standards are established as well as the process by which qualifications of candidates for accreditation or certification are shown to be compliant with these standards.The Symposium will conclude with a panel discussion.Learning Objectives: Recognize the difference between accreditation of an educational program and certification of an individual Identify the two organizations primarily responsible for these tasks Describe the development of educational standards Describe the process by which examination questions are developed GS is Executive Secretary of CAMPEP.

Is the iPad suitable for image display at American Board of Radiology examinations?

The study aimed to determine the acceptability of the iPad 3 as a display option for American Board of Radiology (ABR) examinations. A set of 20 cases for each of nine specialties examined by the ABR was prepared. Each comprised between one and seven images and case information and had been used in previous ABR Initial Certification examinations. Examining radiologists (n = 119) at the ABR oral Initial Certification examinations reviewed sets from one or more specialties on both a 2 MP LED monitor and on the iPad 3 and rated the visibility of the salient image features for each case. The Wilcoxon signed rank test was performed to compare ratings. In addition, a thematic analysis of participants' opinions was undertaken. When all specialties were pooled, the iPad 3 ratings were significantly higher than the monitor ratings (p = 0.0217). The breast, gastrointestinal, genitourinary, and nuclear medicine specialties also returned significantly higher ratings for the visibility of relevant image features for the iPad 3. Monitor ratings were significantly higher for the vascular and interventional specialty, although no images were rated unacceptably poor on the iPad in this specialty. The relevant image features were rated more visible on the iPad 3 than on the monitors overall. The iPad 3 was well accepted by a large majority of examiners and can be considered adequate for image display for examination in most or all specialties.

ABR Examinations: The Why, What, and How

The American Board of Radiology (ABR) has provided certification for diagnostic radiologists and other specialists and subspecialists for more than 75 years. The Board certification process is a tangible expression of the social contract between the profession and the public by which the profession enjoys the privilege of self-regulation and the public is assured that it can expect medical professionals to put patients' interests first, guarantees the competence of practitioners, and guards the public health. A primary tool used by the ABR in fulfilling this responsibility is the secure proctored examination. This article sets forth seven standards based on authoritative sources in the field of psychometrics (the science of mental measurements), and explains in each case how the ABR implements that standard. Readers are encouraged to understand that, despite the multiple opinions that may be held, these standards developed over decades by experts using the scientific method should be the central feature in any discussion or critique of examinations given for the privilege of professional practice and for safeguarding the public well-being.

ABR Examinations: The Why, What, and How

The American Board of Radiology (ABR) has provided certification for diagnostic radiologists and other specialists and subspecialists for more than 75 years. The Board certification process is a tangible expression of the social contract between the profession and the public by which the profession enjoys the privilege of self-regulation and the public is assured that it can expect medical professionals to put patients' interests first, guarantees the competence of practitioners, and guards the public health. A primary tool used by the ABR in fulfilling this responsibility is the secure proctored examination. This article sets forth seven standards based on authoritative sources in the field of psychometrics (the science of mental measurements), and explains in each case how the ABR implements that standard. Readers are encouraged to understand that, despite the multiple opinions that may be held, these standards developed over decades by experts using the scientific method should be the central feature in any discussion or critique of examinations given for the privilege of professional practice and for safeguarding the public well-being.

Practice Analysis: A Basis for Content Validity for American Board of Radiology Examinations in Diagnostic Radiology

The ABR performs practice analysis every 3 years, according to its strategic plan, in an effort to strengthen the content validity of its qualifying and certifying examinations as well as its maintenance of certification examinations. A nationwide survey of diagnostic radiologists was conducted in July 2010 for the purpose of determining the critically important and frequently performed activities in 12 clinical categories. The survey instrument was distributed electronically to 17,721 members of the ACR, with a unique identification code for each individual. A 5-point scale was established for both frequency and importance variables. The frequency scale ranged from 1 to 5 as follows: 1 = not applicable, 2 = occasionally, 3 = monthly, 4 = weekly, and 5 = daily. The scale for importance also ranged from 1 to 5: 1 = not applicable, 2 = not important, 3 = somewhat important, 4 = important, and 5 = essential. A total of 2,909 diagnostic radiologists (19.32%) participated. Of these, 2,233 (76.76%) indicated that they spent ≥50% of their time in clinical practice. Because of its brevity of the list of the activities, results for the gastrointestinal category are presented in this article. The list of activities weighted according to importance and frequency is presented in this article and, as illustrated, could become the foundation for developing a more detailed blueprint for the gastrointestinal category certifying examinations in diagnostic radiology. Findings on demographic information are also presented.

American Diagnostic Radiology Residency and Fellowship Programmes

American Diagnostic Radiology Residency and Fellowship programmes are Graduate Medical Education programmes in the United States (US) equivalent to the Postgraduate Medical Education programmes in Singapore. Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) accredited diagnostic radiology residency programmes require 5 years total with Post Graduate Year (PGY) 1 year internship in a clinical specialty, e.g. Internal Medicine following medical school. PGY Years 2 to 5 are the core years which must include Radiology Physics, Radiation Biology and rotations in 9 required subspecialty rotations: Abdominal, Breast, Cardiothoracic, Musculoskeletal, Neuroradiology, Nuclear and Paediatric Radiology, Obstetric & Vascular Ultrasound and Vascular Interventional Radiology. A core curriculum of lectures must be organised by the required 9 core subspecialty faculty. All residents (PGY 2 to 4) take a yearly American College of Radiology Diagnostic In-Training Examination based on national benchmarks of medical knowledge in each subspecialty. Because the American Board of Radiology (ABR) examinations are changing, until 2012, residents have to take 3 ABR examinations: (i) ABR physics examination in the PGY 2 to 3 years, (ii) a written examination at the start of the PGY 5 year and (iii) an oral exam at the end of the PGY 5 year. Beginning in 2013, there will be only 2 examinations: (i) the physics and written examinations after PGY 4 will become a combined core radiology examination. Beginning in 2015, the final certifying examination will be given 15 months after the completion of residency. After residency, ACGME fellowships in PGY 6 are all one-year optional programmes which focus on only one subspecialty discipline. There are 4 ACGME accredited fellowships which have a Board Certifi cation Examination: Neuroradiology, Nuclear, Paediatric and Vascular Interventional Radiology. Some ACGME fellowships do not have a certifying examination: Abdominal, Endovascular Surgical Neuroradiology and Musculoskeletal Radiology. One year unaccredited fellowships can also be taken in Breast, Cardiothoracic or Women's Imaging.

Screening mammography: a successful public health initiative

This paper reviews the ability of screening mammography to reduce breast cancer death rates, and it discusses methods that maximize benefits and reduce false-positive interpretations in a screening program. The review covers published results from screening mammography programs conducted in Europe and North America, along with quality assurance measures designed to ensure that similar or even better outcomes will be shared by other populations of screened women. Randomized trials in Europe and the United States of America have shown the benefit from screening women ages 40-70 years. Encouraged by the success of these trials, many Scandinavian countries now offer screening mammography to their populations as a public health service. These service screening programs have reduced breast cancer deaths as much as 63% among women who were screened. In the United States, where 61.5% of women age 40 and older report having had a mammogram in the preceding year, death rates from breast cancer have been falling despite an increasing incidence of the disease. The technical quality of mammography in the United States has improved as a result of advances in mammography equipment, including the film-screen systems. Also contributing to the improvement has been the implementation of federally mandated quality control testing at each mammography facility, as required by the Mammography Quality Standards Act (MQSA), which the Congress of the United States approved in 1992. Factors that result in increased detection of early-stage cancers include better technique, use of two mammographic views per breast, annual screening intervals, and improved interpretation. Mammography is one of the 10 major subject categories on the American Board of Radiology examinations. Furthermore, MQSA requires radiologists who practice mammography to obtain continuing medical education credits and to use standard interpretation assessments on every report. Manuals for technical quality control and breast imaging reporting, as well as education and self-assessment materials on interpretation, have been developed by the American College of Radiology. Even though mammography will not detect all breast cancers, it is still the best available screening test. The American Cancer Society recommends that annual screening mammography begin no later than age 40 years.

Radiation oncology career decision variables for graduating trainees seeking positions in 2003–2004

Radiation oncology trainees must consider an array of variables when deciding upon an academic or private practice career path. This prospective evaluation of the 2004 graduating radiation oncology trainees, evaluates such variables and provides additional descriptive data. A survey that included 15 questions (one subjective, eleven categorical, and 3 continuous variables) was mailed to the 144 graduating radiation oncology trainees in United States programs in January of 2004. Questions were designed to gather information regarding factors that may have influenced career path choices. The responses were anonymous, and no identifying information was sought. Survey data were collated and analyzed for differences in both categorical and continuous variables as they related to choice of academic or private practice career path. Sixty seven (47%) of the surveys were returned. Forty-five percent of respondents indicated pursuit of an academic career. All respondents participated in research during training with 73% participating in research publication authorship. Post graduate year-3 was the median in which career path was chosen, and 20% thought that a fellowship position was "perhaps" necessary to secure an academic position. Thirty percent of the respondents revealed that the timing of the American Board of Radiology examination influenced their career path decision. Eighteen variables were offered as possibly influencing career path choice within the survey, and the top five identified by those seeking an academic path were: (1) colleagues, (2) clinical research, (3) teaching, (4) geography, (5) and support staff. For those seeking private practice, the top choices were: (1) lifestyle, (2) practice environment, (3) patient care, (4) geography, (5) colleagues. Female gender (p = 0.064), oral meeting presentation (p = 0.053), and international meeting presentation (p = 0.066) were the variables most significantly associated with pursuing an academic career path. The following variables were ranked significantly differently in hierarchy (p < 0.05) by those seeking an academic versus private practice path with respect to having influence on the career decision: lifestyle, income, case-mix, autonomy, ability to sub-specialize, basic research, clinical research, teaching, patient care, board structure, practice environment, and mentoring. These data offer descriptive information regarding variables that lead to radiation oncology trainee career path decisions. Such information may be of use in modification of training programs to meet future personnel and programmatic needs within the specialty.

A Summary Report on the Reorganization of Cancer and Radiobiology Teaching for Radiation Oncology Residents

Approximately 3 years ago the Cancer and Radiobiology Committee of ASTRO suggested to the ASTRO board that there were a number of perceived and potential deficiencies in radiation biology curricula of radiation oncology residency programs nationwide. The primary issues related to (1) the aging of the teaching faculty, (2) the lack of formal training of newer faculty in classical radiobiology, (3) the lack of familiarity of radiobiology teachers with the American Board of Radiology (ABR) guidelines for the teaching of Cancer Biology and Radiobiology, (4) ignorance of the process undertaken for writing the ABR examination and the American College of Radiology in-service examination, and (5) inability of the ABR, RRS, ACR, ASTRO, and residency directors to communicate with teachers in an efficient manner.

Chief Residency

Chief Residency

Toward a consensus on radiobiology teaching to radiation oncology residents.

There are approximately 82 radiation oncology residency programs in the United States, which provide training opportunities for about 400 residents. All accredited radiation oncology residency programs must have at least one basic scientist on the faculty, and it is these individuals who often assume, wholly or in part, the responsibility of teaching radiation and cancer biology to radiation oncology residents in preparation for the American College of Radiology (ACR) In-Training Examination in Radiation Oncology and the American Board of Radiology (ABR) written examinations. In response to a perceived lack of uniformity in radiation and cancer biology curricula currently being taught to residents and a perceived lack of guidance for instructors in formulating course content for this population, a special session was presented at the Forty-eighth Annual Radiation Research Society meeting on April 23, 2001. The session, entitled "Toward a Consensus on Radiobiology Teaching to Radiation Oncology Residents", was focused on issues related to teaching radiobiology to radiation oncology residents and targeted for individuals who actively teach radiation and cancer biology as well as coordinators of residency training programs. The speakers addressed current challenges and future problems facing instructors and programs. Among these were lack of feedback on resident performance on ABR and ACR written examinations and on course content, uncertainty about what topics residents must know to pass the ABR examination, and, in the near future, a reduction (due to retirement) of instructors qualified to teach radiobiology. This article provides a synopsis of the information that was presented during that session, offers a glimpse into how the ABR and ACR examinations are prepared and details of the content of past and future examinations, and summarizes the activities of the Joint Working Group on Radiobiology Teaching which was formed to educate instructors, to establish a consensus for course curricula, and to improve the overall quality of resident teaching.

Does Medical School Performance Predict Radiology Resident Performance?

Rationale and Objectives The authors performed this study to examine the relationship, if any, of a large number of measures of medical school performance with radiology residency performance. Materials and Methods Applications of 77 radiology residents enrolled from 1991 to 2000 were reviewed. Medical school grades, dean's letter summary statements, letters of recommendation, selection to Alpha Omega Alpha (AOA), and National Board of Medical Examiners (NBME) and U.S. Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 scores were recorded. Student t tests, analysis of variance, and correlation coefficients were used to examine the relationship between these measures of medical school performance and subsequent performance during radiology residency as determined by rotation evaluations, retrospective faculty recall scores, and American College of Radiology (ACR) and American Board of Radiology (ABR) examination scores. Resident performance was also correlated with prestige of the medical school attended. Results Preclinical grades of Honors or A; clinical grades of Honors or A in medicine, surgery, and pediatrics; and high NBME/USMLE scores strongly predicted success on the ABR written clinical examination but did not predict rotation performance. Most other measures of medical school performance, including outstanding Dean's letters and letters of recommendation, AOA selection during the senior year, and high medical school prestige did not predict high examination scores or superior rotation performance during residency. Conclusion Success on the ABR examination can be predicted by medical school success in preclinical courses, some clinical courses, and USMLE examination scores. Dean's letters, letters of recommendation, AOA selection during the senior year, and medical school prestige do not appear to predict future resident performance as reliably.

Results of the 2001 Survey of the American Association of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology

Rationale and Objectives The American Association of Academic Chief Residents in Radiology (A 3CR 2) conducts an annual survey of residency training programs. The survey data allow comparative analyses to be performed among training programs regarding resident education, benefits, clinical demands, and other resident-related issues. Materials and Methods Questionnaires were mailed to all accredited programs registered in the A 3CR 2 database (150 total programs). The yearly questions address demographic information concerning the individual programs including academic affiliation, number of radiologic examinations performed per resident, changes in the number of residents per program, and financial compensation. The rotating questions, which are revisited every 4 years, focused on preparation for the American Board of Radiology examinations, educational issues, and employment outlook. Results Completed surveys were received from 55 programs (37.3%). Among the responses, three issues prevailed: ( a) increased number of examinations performed per resident, with resultant decrease in educational time, ( b) decreased quality of education in all sections of radiology and decreased number of educational conferences, and ( c) improved employment outlook, but continued trend of fewer residents choosing a career in academics. Conclusion The current boom in the radiology job market and the increased number of radiologic examinations performed annually appear to adversely affect radiologic education through a decreased number of conferences and an increased number of radiologic examinations performed per resident.