Diagnostic Radiology

[Cold Penguin]

I have been doing some work in a field that extenively uses the knowledge of diagnostic radiology and have been looking into diagnostic radiology as my specialty. Besides having good grades and prepping for Step I, I have done no other prepping to get into the field. What is the recommended order of rotations during MSIII and MSIV for those who want to get into diagnostic radiology? Also, should I be doing the aways for getting LORs from the big names?

Also, how good am I supposed to be at physics and math once I get into the residency for diagnostic radiology? I can handle math, but the physics was my least favorite subject as a pre-med. I somehow have a feeling that the nightmare of having to study physics will haunt me again in a few years down the road.

Also, what is also the general impression towards the diagnostic radiology out there?

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[Droopy Snoopy]

I have been doing some work in a field that extenively uses the knowledge of diagnostic radiology and have been looking into diagnostic radiology as my specialty. Besides having good grades and prepping for Step I, I have done no other prepping to get into the field. What is the recommended order of rotations during MSIII and MSIV for those who want to get into diagnostic radiology? Also, should I be doing the aways for getting LORs from the big names?

Also, how good am I supposed to be at physics and math once I get into the residency for diagnostic radiology? I can handle math, but the physics was my least favorite subject as a pre-med. I somehow have a feeling that the nightmare of having to study physics will haunt me again in a few years down the road.

Also, what is also the general impression towards the diagnostic radiology out there?

Although I'm preclinical just like you, I can tell you the consensus at my school is the order of third year rotations don't matter all that much. Sure you don't want to do something you're interested in first because everybody looks like a ***** their first rotation, but this doesn't really apply to you since there isn't a core rads rotation. Fourth year you'll want to do rads electives early both to ensure it's really what you want to do and because you'll need the experience for ERAS and interviews. My understanding of away rotations is they're done at places where you could see yourself doing residency, and getting an LOR from there will help you the most when applying to that particular program. It's also my understanding that rads boards are pretty heavy on the physics, maybe moreso than any other specialty besides gas. Your interest level makes a difference though, so maybe having a stronger motivation to learn it as well as being able to fit the info into a clinical backdrop will help the second time around.

 

[deleted87716]

You might consider asking these questions in the Radiology Forum.

Radiology training involves a lot of physics, so it will definitely come back to haunt you again.

The order of your third-year medical school rotations will have absolutely no bearing on your acceptance into a radiology residency.

I'm not sure what you mean by "general impression," but I think radiology is one of those things that you either love or you hate. To those of us who enjoy clinical medicine, it looks pretty boring.

 

[Critical Mass]

I have been doing some work in a field that extenively uses the knowledge of diagnostic radiology and have been looking into diagnostic radiology as my specialty. Besides having good grades and prepping for Step I, I have done no other prepping to get into the field. What is the recommended order of rotations during MSIII and MSIV for those who want to get into diagnostic radiology? Also, should I be doing the aways for getting LORs from the big names?

Also, what is also the general impression towards the diagnostic radiology out there?

They are seen as people who just went into medicine for the salary and are using their board scores to yield a cush lifestyle.

If this thread doesn't die off, you'll get several people posting who think that radiology is going to waste away due to overseas competition (starting with the Austrailians reading US films via electronic correspondence in the hours when we're sleeping here).

I agree with he who hails from the Stroke Belt. Rotation order matters not. M4 at my house is mostly selectives. In your clinical years, you can't really read films anyway, so you're role on a radiology selective would be to stand back and watch. I agree that you should do it, but just enough exposure to do a little bit of research and see if you like it or not is plenty. Some successful rads matchers I've talked to don't recommend away rotations for rads since you don't really get your hands wet and do nothing more than risk giving a bad impression.

 

[dutchman]

I think Radilogy board certification exam has a whole section(or day) dedicated to just physics.

 

[Critical Mass]

I think Radilogy board certification exam has a whole section(or day) dedicated to just physics.

I heard that too.

I didn't read this part of your post before, but med school preparation will be similar for all grads. I don't think that they are going to give you an oral physics exam at your program interview, so you'll get the material you need as a resident.

 

[njbmd]

Moving to Radiology for better comments.

 

[colbgw02]

I have been doing some work in a field that extenively uses the knowledge of diagnostic radiology and have been looking into diagnostic radiology as my specialty. Besides having good grades and prepping for Step I, I have done no other prepping to get into the field. What is the recommended order of rotations during MSIII and MSIV for those who want to get into diagnostic radiology? Also, should I be doing the aways for getting LORs from the big names?

Also, how good am I supposed to be at physics and math once I get into the residency for diagnostic radiology? I can handle math, but the physics was my least favorite subject as a pre-med. I somehow have a feeling that the nightmare of having to study physics will haunt me again in a few years down the road.

Also, what is also the general impression towards the diagnostic radiology out there?

1. The others are correct; the order of your clerkships is irrelevant.

2. When I was applying, my advisor (and school's radiology PD) said to only get a radiology letter if it is an 'extra' letter, meaning that a radiology letter should be on top of your main 3 LORs. The reasoning is that the vast majority of student general radiology rotations don't allow you to spend any appreciable amount of time with a single attending. PDs know this, so a radiology letter probably doesn't mean very much. An exception to this would be if you did an entire rotation devoted to one aspect of radiology, like interventional.

3. Radiology boards come in the 3 parts; the first part is devoted to physics and is typically taken at the end of your R1 (PGY-2) year or in beginning of your R2 (PGY-3) year. As a student, no one is going to expect you to understand the intricacies of MR. Don't worry. It's physics, sure, but they're not asking you to split the atom.

4. I can say conclusively that I would not have gone into radiology if they didn't pay me, so yeah, I guess I did it for the money.

 

[Cold Penguin]

I thought I'd ask anyways. Is radioactive stuff so hazardous to the level that any radiologist always works at some level of risk? I mean I've read a post like, "if you're worried about having a child with three heads as a result of secondary exposure to the radioactive materials, forget about going into radiology etc. Hospitals don't care, and know why the salary is so high. etc."

As I am genuinly interested in going into diagnostic radiology, I feel like I need something to justify myself for the myths (like the one above). It may not be simply a myth, so I don't know. But, I thought I'd ask and find out.

P.S. I am pretty serious, so please don't post jokes. Any cited materials on the relevant topics will be great. If not, let's just talk about it in a mature way. Thanks.

 

[peehdee]

I agree with the original writer.

I think those who try hard to get into radiology should be given first choice. Instead of letting someone who wanted to be an orthopod who happen to have high board score who didn't match into ortho to sweep in and get a spot that should have gone to someone who spent a lot of time putting time into radiology.

There should be some reward for determination.

 

[f_w]

I thought I'd ask anyways. Is radioactive stuff so hazardous to the level that any radiologist always works at some level of risk? I mean I've read a post like, "if you're worried about having a child with three heads as a result of secondary exposure to the radioactive materials, forget about going into radiology etc. Hospitals don't care, and know why the salary is so high. etc."

If you do pure 'diagnostic' radiology (no interventional work), your exposure will be minimal (a couple of minutes of fluoro scatter per week).
If you sit at a PACS workstation dictating cases all day, your key occupational risks are hemorrhoids and cardiovascular disease. Radiation exposure is not part of the equation.

Radiologists who do large amounts of interventional work do receive measurable doses of radiation. If you are diligent in your radiation protection techniques (and know what x-rays do when they interact with tissue), it is uncommon to get into a range of exposure that represents a danger. There is at least one conference presentation out there that demonstrated posterior subcapsular cataracts in the left eyes of a good number of IRs, but I have never seen this as a peer-reviewed paper.

Hospitals do care, mainly because there are regulations about this stuff and they will loose their ability to perform certain studies if they are found in violation of the regs.

As I am genuinly interested in going into diagnostic radiology, I feel like I need something to justify myself for the myths (like the one above). It may not be simply a myth, so I don't know. But, I thought I'd ask and find out.

It is not a myth in the sense that in the 1920s and 1930s radiologists indeed had a high mortality from various cancers. Back then, fluoroscopy equipment (which was extensively used) caused approx 1000 times the dose to the operator than todays units. Also, radiologists back then did 'therapeutic radiology' (today called radiation oncology) using open sources of good stuff like radium. It took a couple of years for people to realize that ionizing radiation is inherently dangerous and adapt to proper radiation protection techniques.

P.S. I am pretty serious, so please don't post jokes. Any cited materials on the relevant topics will be great. If not, let's just talk about it in a mature way. Thanks.

Go to your schools library and see if they have a copy of Christensens Radiology Physics book. It has a chapter on radiation protection (as this is extensively tested on the radiology boards).