Rationale and Objectives
With rapid scientific and technological advancements in radiological research, there is renewed emphasis on promoting early research training to develop researchers who are capable of tackling the hypothesis-driven research that is typically funded in contemporary academic research enterprises. This review article aims to introduce radiology residents to the abundant radiology research opportunities available to them and to encourage early research engagement among trainees.
Materials and Methods
To encourage early resident participation in radiology research, we review the various research opportunities available to trainees spanning basic, clinical, and translational science opportunities to ongoing research in information technology, informatics, and quality improvement research.
Conclusions
There is an incredible breadth and depth of ongoing research at academic radiology departments across the country, and the material presented herein aspires to highlight both subject matter and opportunities available to radiology residents eager to engage in radiologic research. The opportunities for interested radiology residents are as numerous as they are broad, spanning the basic sciences to clinical research to informatics, with abundant opportunities to shape our future practice of radiology.
Medical imaging—comprising computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and positron emission tomography (PET) techniques, among others—has become an indispensible clinical tool . With the advent and introduction of these new imaging technologies over the past 30 years, much of radiology research was focused on the modality-specific imaging features of disease. Although the importance of this descriptive research was critical to the development and maturation of these new imaging modalities, imaging and our understanding of the underlying pathophysiology of disease have since become much more nuanced and sophisticated. In recognition of this, there has been a concerted effort by academic departments and the Radiological Society of North America (RSNA) and the Association of University Radiologists (AUR) to promote early research training to develop researchers who are capable of tackling the hypothesis-driven research that is typically funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) .
To this end, the late 1990s and the early 2000s saw the development of several measures to spur the participation and development of radiologists in radiologic- and imaging-based research including the formation of the American Board of Radiology (ABR) Holman Pathway for training radiologists as basic and clinical research scientists, the launching of the Revitalizing the Radiology Research Enterprise by the RSNA, and capped by the establishment of the National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering at the NIH in 2000. Despite these and ongoing efforts of academic radiology departments, academic radiology leadership (through the Society of Chairmen of Academic Radiology Departments), and clinical educators, resident participation has not significantly increased in the intervening time even with research and scholarly activity comprising an important component of the Accreditation Council of Graduate Medical Education Next Accreditation System Milestone Project . To address this disconnect, it is imperative that radiology residents and fellows are made better aware of what contemporary research questions and directions exist in radiology research and the tools available to starting tackling these questions today.
A measured first step toward recruiting and training radiologic researchers is ensuring that trainees are aware of the abundant research opportunities available to them. Efforts to engage residents in contemporary research range from programmatic approaches that incorporate formal research tracks or NIH research training programs (eg, T32 programs) into residency programs to less-structured and informal research opportunities scattered throughout training. Numerous funding opportunities to provide residents the resources to pursue radiologic research are also widely available. These range from institutional seed grants, research grants from the RSNA (including both basic science and educational grants), grants and research sponsorship from the AUR to grants from the industrial sector (General Electric, Siemens and other) and other allied academic societies (eg, American Heart Association and American College of Medical Quality). As the accessibility and application of medical imaging grow, the importance of nourishing physician investigators trained in the radiologic sciences is increasingly important and highlights how critical opportunities and funding for radiology research, especially at the resident level, are toward realizing that today’s research is tomorrow’s practice .
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Basic science research
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Research Opportunities
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Challenges and Solutions
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Clinical and translational research
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Research Opportunities
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Challenges and Solutions
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Information technology and informatics research
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Research Opportunities
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Challenges and Solutions
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Quality improvement (QI) and health care economics (HCE) research
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Research Opportunities in QI
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Research Opportunities in HCE
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Challenges and Solutions
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Mentorship and radiology resident research
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Conclusions
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
Get Radiology Tree app to read full this article<
References
1. Arenson R.L., Dunnick N.R., Hillman B.J.: Time for change: new emphasis on training for radiology research. Acad Radiol 2002; 9: pp. 695-699.
2. Barker C.F.: Making imaging research a part of radiology resident training. Acad Radiol 2013; 20: pp. 135-136.
3. Collins J.: Resident research. Acad Radiol 2003; 10: pp. S24-S30.
4. Costello J.R., Mullins M.E., Votaw J.R., et. al.: Establishing a new radiology residency research track. Acad Radiol 2013; 20: pp. 243-248.
5. Pretorius E.S., Solomon J.A., Stribling C.: Medical student attitudes toward inclusion of a research year within diagnostic radiology residency: a survey of students participating in the 2002 NRMP match. National Resident Matching Program. Acad Radiol 2003; 10: pp. 77-82.
6. ACGME. The diagnostic radiology milestone project. Available at: https://http://www.acgme.org/acgmeweb/Portals/0/PDFs/Milestones/DiagnosticRadiologyMilestones.pdf . Accessed February 19, 2014. 2014.
7. Dunnick N.R.: Opinion. Report of the 2002 intersociety Commission meeting: Radiology 2002—today’s research is tomorrow’s practice. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2003; 180: pp. 925-928.
8. ICSU. The value of basic scientific research. The Value of Basic Science Research: Paris, November, 2004.
9. Gutman S., Kessler L.G.: The US Food and Drug Administration perspective on cancer biomarker development. Nat Rev Cancer 2006; 6: pp. 565-571.
10. Smith J.J., Sorensen A.G., Thrall J.H.: Biomarkers in imaging: realizing radiology’s future. Radiology 2003; 227: pp. 633-638.
11. Sawyers C.L.: The cancer biomarker problem. Nature 2008; 452: pp. 548-552.
12. Van Beers B.E., Vilgrain V.: Biomarkers in abdominal imaging. Abdom Imaging 2009; 34: pp. 663-667.
13. Hanahan D., Weinberg R.A.: The hallmarks of cancer. Cell 2000; 100: pp. 57-70.
14. Weissleder R., Pittet M.J.: Imaging in the era of molecular oncology. Nature 2008; 452: pp. 580-589.
15. Chithriki M.: Research during radiology residency: challenges for the future. J Am Coll Radiol 2004; 1: pp. 361-363.
16. Ai T., Morelli J.N., Hu X., et. al.: A historical overview of magnetic resonance imaging, focusing on technological innovations. Invest Radiol 2012; 47: pp. 725-741.
17. Avrin D.E., Urbania T.H.: Demise of film. Acad Radiol 2014; 21: pp. 303-304.
18. Huang H.K.: Short history of PACS. Part I: USA. Eur J Radiol 2011; 78: pp. 163-176.
19. Li K.C., Marcovici P., Phelps A., et. al.: Digitization of medicine: how radiology can take advantage of the digital revolution. Acad Radiol 2013; 20: pp. 1479-1494.
20. Blumenthal D.: Launching HITECH. N Engl J Med 2010; 362: pp. 382-385.
21. Blumenthal D.: Implementation of the federal health information technology initiative. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: pp. 2426-2431.
22. Blumenthal D., Tavenner M.: The “meaningful use” regulation for electronic health records. N Engl J Med 2010; 363: pp. 501-504.
23. Jha A.K.: Meaningful use of electronic health records: the road ahead. JAMA 2010; 304: pp. 1709-1710.
24. Mendelson D.S., Rubin D.L.: Imaging informatics: essential tools for the delivery of imaging services. Acad Radiol 2013; 20: pp. 1195-1212.
25. Rubin D.L.: Informatics in radiology: measuring and improving quality in radiology: meeting the challenge with informatics. Radiographics 2011; 31: pp. 1511-1527.
26. El-Kareh R., Hasan O., Schiff G.D.: Use of health information technology to reduce diagnostic errors. BMJ Qual Saf 2013; 22: pp. ii40-ii51.
27. Prevedello L., Khorasani R.: Enhancing quality assurance and quality control programs: IT tools can help. J Am Coll Radiol 2009; 6: pp. 888-889.
28. Safdar N.M., Siegel E., Erickson B.J., et. al.: Enabling comparative effectiveness research with informatics: show me the data!. Acad Radiol 2011; 18: pp. 1072-1076.
29. Mendelson D.S., Bak P.R., Menschik E., et. al.: Informatics in radiology: image exchange: IHE and the evolution of image sharing. Radiographics 2008; 28: pp. 1817-1833.
30. Siegel E.L., Channin D.S.: Integrating the Healthcare Enterprise: a primer. Part 1. Introduction. Radiographics 2001; 21: pp. 1339-1341.
31. Rubin D.L., Napel S.: Imaging informatics: toward capturing and processing semantic information in radiology images. Yearb Med Inform 2010; pp. 34-42.
32. Sistrom C.L., Langlotz C.P.: A framework for improving radiology reporting. J Am Coll Radiol 2005; 2: pp. 159-167.
33. Kruskal J.B., Eisenberg R., Sosna J., et. al.: Quality Initiatives. Radiographics 2011; 31: pp. 1499-1509.
34. Federal Coordinating Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research (U.S.), United States President, United States Congress, United States, Department of Health and Human Services: Report to the President and the Congress.2009.US Dept. of Health and Human ServicesWashington, DC
35. Institute of Medicine (U.S.): Committee on Comparative Effectiveness Research Prioritization. Initial national priorities for comparative effectiveness research.2009.National Academies PressWashington, DC
36. Lee C.I., Jarvik J.G.: Patient-centered outcomes research in radiology: trends in funding and methodology. Acad Radiol 2014; 21: pp. 1156-1161.
37. Hoffmann U., Truong Q.A., Schoenfeld D.A., et. al.: Coronary CT angiography versus standard evaluation in acute chest pain. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: pp. 299-308.
38. Kerlikowske K., Hubbard R.A., Miglioretti D.L., et. al.: Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: a cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011; 155: pp. 493-502.
39. Turnbull L., Brown S., Harvey I., et. al.: Comparative effectiveness of MRI in breast cancer (COMICE) trial: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 2010; 375: pp. 563-571.
40. McDonald J.S., Port J.D., Bender C.E.: How to set up a departmental comparative effectiveness research unit: one department’s experience. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2014; 202: pp. 561-565.
41. Orth R.C., Cantor S.B.: Comparative effectiveness research in pediatric radiology. Pediatr Radiol 2014; 44: pp. 940-941.
42. Tunis S.R., Benner J., McClellan M.: Comparative effectiveness research: policy context, methods development and research infrastructure. Stat Med 2010; 29: pp. 1963-1976.
43. Lipscomb R., An S.: Mentoring 101: building a mentoring relationship. J Am Diet Assoc 2010; 110: pp. 1002-1008.
44. Sanfey H., Hollands C., Gantt N.L.: Strategies for building an effective mentoring relationship. Am J Surg 2013; 206: pp. 714-718.