Physics & Radbio

Panacea Financial Contract Review
This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
dieABRdie said:
Maybe physics was deceptively "reasonable". I just found out someone who got an 80% (percentile) on RAPHEX exam this year who failed as bad as I did.

Most programs today don't have actual radiation biology faculty. They just have something to meet the requirement to get a residency.
Click to expand...

Well that’s what happened to me with physics, I was feeling pretty good and doing well with the raphex exams read McDermott and overall felt I had a good understanding. I’m kind of at a loss for what to do next.
Members don't see this ad.
 
Awfulabr said:
I did 9 years worth of raphex 2x each and was getting 75-85% correct. Knew all the formulas perfectly. Failed physics. Based on my section breakdown I should be comfortably within the 2nd quartile overall. Felt the test was tough but not out of this world. Not exactly sure how I failed. Really annoyed.
Click to expand...

Yes, this is pretty much where I was sitting and I failed too. I don’t get it.
 
Physics: I thought it was tough, but fair. I passed with 1,2,2,2,4, not in that order. How I studied:

Caggiano:listened and took notes to review later, tried to work thru the problems he covered during the lectures.

Raphex: did the most recent 4 years of exams. Most recent one I think I did twice. Initial percent correct was around 60, but final 3 exams was getting mid-70s. I compiled notes with formulas and key concepts that I reviewed prior to taking each practice exam. I also created some flashcards for some of the formulas and key concepts and went thru them as much as possible, especially in the days leading up to the exam.

Additional problems: I went through several hundred physics questions that had been compiled by someone amazing
from older Raphex exams. Lots of repetition helped cement some of the most common physics problems for me.

Rad Bio: I failed, 1,1,2,2, not in that order. How I studied (i.e. what did NOT work!):

ASTRO study guides: I went through 4 ASTRO study guides, plus repeated the questions from any sections I got below 70% on my first run. I was getting mid 80s on the last 3 study guides. I felt that was a safe pass...nope.

Review courses: participated in a departmental review over the month of June. Was some lectures, some practice problems. Not helpful, as it turns out.

Other practice problems: again, someone had compiled some rad bio questions from old study guides onto PowerPoints, and I went through maybe 200 questions that way.

Like I did for physics, I compiled notes as I did the above things and also created some flash cards for formulas, key concepts, and crap that was pure memorization.

Hope that helps others.

Thanks to everyone who is posting what they did that worked or didn't work. I hope it will help those of us who need to repeat exams and those taking the exams for the first time in 2019.
 
Last edited:
Members don't see this ad :)
I passed rad bio and physics last year. Honestly for rad bio, I read all of hall through the year and took detailed notes specifically related to pathways and chemo mechanisms. I did about 8 years of Astro study guides. I found that was enough to catch everything. (I.e. no more new questions). Our program also had us take the rabex every year. Tough exam but may be more reflective of boards. I did well quartile wise.

For physics, I also read most of khan through the year and took notes. Focused a lot on shielding and anything I thought was memorizable during my read through and wrote it down. Made flash cards. To be fair I have a math background so physics conceptually wasn’t too bad for me.

Just since everyone was posting here I figured I would let people know what I did last year. The exam may have changed though since I took it last years.

Also, regarding clinical oncology boards, I passed but when I took it I was surprised by how many non radiation questions related to oncology there were. It’s truly an oncology exam.
 
Many thanks for the replies on how to study, and also those replies about what didn't work.

I didn't expect to knock these two exams out of the park, but I was surprised I did not pass.

Physics: Caggiano x2 (but I did not do questions in at the end of each section), Raphex x5 years, flashcards with concepts. My Raphex scores started around 55-60% and ended around 80%. My program's physics course is generally good, but I would say most of my knowledge came from self-study. My quartiles scores (not in order) were 3,3,2,2,1. (where 4=top quartile and 1=bottom quartile). Frankly, I'm a little surprised this didn't amount to a passing score. Certainly below average, but failing? Frustrating...

RadBio: Hall summary twice (written by someone else but basically comprehensive), study guide questions from the last ~9 years (and studied the solutions), many flashcards (>500). Was scoring ~70% but I used the questions as more of a study resource than a means to evaluate my performance. My program has a completely inadequate rad bio course. My quartile scores (not in order) were 2,2,1,1.

I spent a significant amount of time studying and I used resources generally recommended by others in the past in this thread and others. I'm at a bit of a loss on how to approach these tests (not to mention clinicals) next year in order to ensure a pass.
 
Also am surprised that a 3 3 2 2 1 is a fail. How does that happen? Wonder if the fail rates are high this year or what?

I mean theoretically you should be able to get a 1 1 1 1 1 and pass, or so I assumed, because it's okay to be in the 25 percentile overall, just not bottom 10-15 (assuming pass rate is 85-90)

very strange, sorry this happened.

for a reference of passing scores:
physics i got 2 2 3 4 4
rad bio i got 3 3 3 1
 
Must be that some categories are weighted more heavily/have more questions from the test.
 
multitudes said:
Many thanks for the replies on how to study, and also those replies about what didn't work.

I didn't expect to knock these two exams out of the park, but I was surprised I did not pass.

Physics: Caggiano x2 (but I did not do questions in at the end of each section), Raphex x5 years, flashcards with concepts. My Raphex scores started around 55-60% and ended around 80%. My program's physics course is generally good, but I would say most of my knowledge came from self-study. My quartiles scores (not in order) were 3,3,2,2,1. (where 4=top quartile and 1=bottom quartile). Frankly, I'm a little surprised this didn't amount to a passing score. Certainly below average, but failing? Frustrating...

RadBio: Hall summary twice (written by someone else but basically comprehensive), study guide questions from the last ~9 years (and studied the solutions), many flashcards (>500). Was scoring ~70% but I used the questions as more of a study resource than a means to evaluate my performance. My program has a completely inadequate rad bio course. My quartile scores (not in order) were 2,2,1,1.

I spent a significant amount of time studying and I used resources generally recommended by others in the past in this thread and others. I'm at a bit of a loss on how to approach these tests (not to mention clinicals) next year in order to ensure a pass.
Click to expand...

I got 1 1 2 3 3 on physics and also did not pass. I agree that the math with quartiles and the published pass rate just doesn’t make sense to me. I did all the raphex back to 2009? McDermott x 2 with all the questions at the end with raphex 75-80% at the end of studying. I agree I would like some more information on what I need to do to succeed.
 
gmsquid said:
Also, regarding clinical oncology boards, I passed but when I took it I was surprised by how many non radiation questions related to oncology there were. It’s truly an oncology exam.
Click to expand...

How would you suggest covering the pure oncology questions? Is the material in Gunderson/Tepper? Really trying to avoid buying and reading Davita lol


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
Here are my thoughts/comments on the three sections:

1) Physics - I think the most important is to emphasize physics concepts. Calculations were very low yield. For new test taker, I would recommend going thru the Rad Onc specific TGs. They are easy to read and surprisingly high yield.

2) Rad Bio - Rad bio was random. Hall is still the best resource to review. ASTRO questions were useful but surprisingly low yield.

3) Clinical - The clinical exam was very interesting. I don't think a "comprehensive" review of oncology would prepare you for some of the random oncology drugs that were asked. My biggest complaint about the clinical boards is the lack of information in the stem of the question. It is weird to ask a clinical question with just one sentence of patient information.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
RO28 said:
I got 1 1 2 3 3 on physics and also did not pass. I agree that the math with quartiles and the published pass rate just doesn’t make sense to me. I did all the raphex back to 2009? McDermott x 2 with all the questions at the end with raphex 75-80% at the end of studying. I agree I would like some more information on what I need to do to succeed.
Click to expand...

Like many who have posted my quartiles do not seem to match the fact that I failed. For example, for rad bio based on my individual quartile scores (1,2,2,2 not in that order) my assumption is that my composite quartile should be 2 which means at the very least I should have performed better than 25% of candidates overall, unless the sub-category that I scored a 1 in was weighted very heavily. If the test has a historical 90% first time pass rate the numbers simply don't add up. Also what this means is that there are a lot of people who potentially failed.

I would encourage all of those who have not already done so to contact the ABR by email through the myABR website to try and get some clarity on why scores that seemingly would have led to a pass in previous years are all of a sudden considered a fail now. Something just seems strange.
 
I luckily passed both sections, but honestly, I prepped the same way and used the same resources as everyone else for the most part. I started studying a bit in February, using the in-service as motivation - my scores had been very low in the past, because I kind of blew off studying any physics or radbio. Went to Maryland Review in April. Started studying consistently around then with a few weekends off if I was out of town. Tried to do 1-2 hours on weekdays and 4-5 on weekends.

Physics - 2 3 3 3 4 (not in order). We have good physics faculty, particularly younger folks who were always available to go over questions and concepts. Did Raphex from 2009-2018 and used McDermott as a resource. Skimmed through Caggiano but didn't get a lot out of it. Also did ROQ which were straightforward. Got 65% on 2018 about 4 weeks before the exam. I found the exam to be "fair" but difficult. It did not have many complex calculations like Raphex. In some ways, I found the older Raphex more helpful because they tested basic concepts a bit more. I was a bit worried about physics because I realized I made some dumb mistakes and changed a couple questions from right to wrong.

Radbio - 3 4 4 4 (not in order). I have an undergrad degree in cell biology, so that may have helped with at least approaching some of the ridiculous questions this exam had. Did Astro review from 2013-2017 and used Hall as a resource. Also took Rabex in February as required by our department. I always felt comfortable with radbio conceptually and for whatever reason I wasn't as worried as physics. But, I agree that there was a ton on that test that wasn't in the review questions or Hall. It's not really a radiobiology exam anymore and is more of a molecular and cellular oncology exam. I did notice that a new version of Hall is out, so hopefully that has some useful updates.

I think the ABR is serious about their Angoff scoring and they won't adjust scores based on low pass rate. I think it's crazy that one can be in the 2nd quartile and still fail. These exams should just be core competency - do you know the basics to be a competent clinician? I'm thankful and relieved to have passed, but I really feel for everyone who didn't. They are writing these exams like they are trying to rank and weed out candidates, which is absurd.
 
Last edited:
bob1988 said:
They are writing these exams like they are trying to rank and weed out candidates, which is absurd.
Click to expand...
This is the central issue. This is a normative exam. Angoff scoring is a ruse to disguise the norming going on instead of the competency that the ABR says they are measuring.
 
It's pretty shocking that people are scoring in the 2nd and 3rd quartiles for more than half of the exam and still failing for both bio and physics. I have heard lots of rumors about failure rates this year with some astronomical numbers, but won't repeat so as not to fuel further speculation. But it should be telling that no one has ever reported a failure on this forum before and now we have probably close to 10 reports out of nowhere this year.

This concept of "keeping the failure rate stable" sounds like b.s. The ABR should not be concerned about failure rates. It should be possible and perfectly acceptable to have 100% of people pass. It's not like we're not putting in the time. The person who did 9 ASTRO study guides and still failed? I only did one, and it took me a week to get through and my quartile scores were still better than that individual. Clearly that enormous extra effort was completely wasted as the content on the ASTRO exams was not tested (almost as if they purposely wrote questions that hadn't been covered on the exams since they knew that we used them to study)? I don't get what the ABR is trying to do. Every other professional exam has an official study guide or question bank, and if you put the time in, you pass. What's wrong with that? Why the smoke and mirrors? Why is it ok that I have no idea what to study in order to pass this exam?

Will there be fallout from this?
 
toJumpOrNottoJump said:
Like many who have posted my quartiles do not seem to match the fact that I failed. For example, for rad bio based on my individual quartile scores (1,2,2,2 not in that order) my assumption is that my composite quartile should be 2 which means at the very least I should have performed better than 25% of candidates overall, unless the sub-category that I scored a 1 in was weighted very heavily. If the test has a historical 90% first time pass rate the numbers simply don't add up. Also what this means is that there are a lot of people who potentially failed.

I would encourage all of those who have not already done so to contact the ABR by email through the myABR website to try and get some clarity on why scores that seemingly would have led to a pass in previous years are all of a sudden considered a fail now. Something just seems strange.
Click to expand...

Yep, I contacted them. Will see what happens but agree, as many people should reach out as possible. We’re all smart, they can’t pull that dumb math stuff on us and expect us to believe it.
 
i sent an email through my gmail and not the abr site itself. i'm assuming they'll still see it? really weird to hear all these similar stories from people who failed. interested to see what comes of this, if anything
 
I would hope they release the pass rates for the past few years (on an individual year basis). Sorry to harp on this but its very easy to fudge the numbers when they lump the years together like they have been doing. We demand answers!
 
If the ABR wants to do the right thing, they will unmask the pass rates and acknowledge that a sudden jump in failures of 3-4 times over normal represents a systemic problem with their exam content, not just a statistical anomaly, and represents a major disconnect in current resident education and changes in tested content. They should work to immediately address this and offer a mid-year retake.
 
Would be nice if we could review the radbio test for purposes of learning and better understanding their rationale for choosing what they consider important to know. Also, I remember multiple questions where there appeared to be more than one acceptable answer. One question in particular where I felt there were three legitimate answers depending on how you interpret the literature. When you've got a test so poorly written that so many people barely passed or barely failed, it sure would be nice to challenge a few questions.
 
Hi Everyone,

Just wanted to add my name to the list of poor souls that failed this year. Unfortunately BOTH rad bio and physics. My breakdown was:

Physics: 1, 1, 2, 3, 3
Rad Bio: 1, 1, 2, 2

We deserve to know more information. If the failure rate is signficantly higher I want to know why. They have now set all of us up on a more difficult path to succeed. We must now complete these exams in addition to clinicals next year-- a rather monumental task. Not only was all of our prior studying now in vain (an exaggeration but you get my point on the arduous task ahead), but whats most disconcerting is the fact that there is NO obvious path on how to improve. I was scoring >80% on all Raphex exams and failed physics. Rad Bio questions were out in left field and there is no obvious resource that 'knowing inside and out' will promise good results (reading Hall, doing years and years of old study guides.. both of which I did). Hopefully we can get some more answers from ABR if we all push hard enough. I have already contacted them.
 
mikezab said:
Hi Everyone,

Just wanted to add my name to the list of poor souls that failed this year. Unfortunately BOTH rad bio and physics. My breakdown was:

Physics: 1, 1, 2, 3, 3
Rad Bio: 1, 1, 2, 2

We deserve to know more information. If the failure rate is signficantly higher I want to know why. They have now set all of us up on a more difficult path to succeed. We must now complete these exams in addition to clinicals next year-- a rather monumental task. Not only was all of our prior studying now in vain (an exaggeration but you get my point on the arduous task ahead), but whats most disconcerting is the fact that there is NO obvious path on how to improve. I was scoring >80% on all Raphex exams and failed physics. Rad Bio questions were out in left field and there is no obvious resource that 'knowing inside and out' will promise good results (reading Hall, doing years and years of old study guides.. both of which I did). Hopefully we can get some more answers from ABR if we all push hard enough. I have already contacted them.
Click to expand...

Agree. If/when I hear back I will post it here.
 
Support to all those who did not pass - truly feel for you. I have no inside knowledge of this exam(s).

I state this only for reference purposes. Prior to ABR removing the individual year pass rates, they were posted. This is recollection, but one year I believe physics had a pass rate of 85 or 87%, and rad bio had 90%. This was, 5 years ago maybe?

That is not evidence of this exam being well written, or study guides well designed, etc. But it does mean this exam has, at least in some past year or years, had 15-25 failures, depending on the number of test takers.

The question of whether that is appropriate or not is a different debate. But from my view, it seems these exams were more difficult then became easier for a few years, then maybe went back to what they were. That is more of a guide for future test takers.
 
Chartreuse Wombat said:
This is the central issue. This is a normative exam. Angoff scoring is a ruse to disguise the norming going on instead of the competency that the ABR says they are measuring.
Click to expand...

Its extremely depressing reading this and seeing the amount of effort people put into the test and still failed at least one if not both tests. I've sat in these courses for the past few years and my frustration builds more every year with the amount of non-relevant minutia and things that have zero importance for us to be competent, safe clinicians. I would argue it is even detrimental to put so much effort into something that is not relevant while one could actually be studying clinical rad onc. It seems people have felt like this for a long time. Why don't we do something about it? It seems that these exams should totally be scrapped in their current forms. Test what is actually clinically relevant. How many more "weed out" steps do we need in this field? so utterly ridiculous that people who have worked so hard now have to deal with this.
How about we actually do something about this as a field instead of thinking "I passed so it's no longer my problem".
 
Last edited:
Passed physics (I have a mathy background, did one or two raphex and also have good in house physics curriculum) 3/3/3/4/4 (not in order)

Failed rad bio 1/1/2/2 (not in order) but admittedly didn’t study the hardest here, but attended prep course and did reviews. Disappointed but not unexpected.

I also should mention from my nearby area I know of three others that passed physics and failed RadBio similarly.
 
DebtRising said:
Support to all those who did not pass - truly feel for you. I have no inside knowledge of this exam(s).

I state this only for reference purposes. Prior to ABR removing the individual year pass rates, they were posted. This is recollection, but one year I believe physics had a pass rate of 85 or 87%, and rad bio had 90%. This was, 5 years ago maybe?

That is not evidence of this exam being well written, or study guides well designed, etc. But it does mean this exam has, at least in some past year or years, had 15-25 failures, depending on the number of test takers.

The question of whether that is appropriate or not is a different debate. But from my view, it seems these exams were more difficult then became easier for a few years, then maybe went back to what they were. That is more of a guide for future test takers.
Click to expand...

This comment misses the point... 15-25 failures is a reasonable failure rate given how many residents there are each year. For example, if there are a 190 residents that took the exam and the bottom 12% failed that would be approximately 23 residents failing. Falls perfectly in that 15-25 range you mentioned and that is basically an 88% pass rating. But this is not what is happening. Look at some of the scores that are failing.... someone posted a 3,3,2,2,1 and failed the physics exam. That person (unless the subcategory that a 1 was scored in was weighted VERY heavily) at the very least is floating some where around average. The number of people that are failing, based on some of the posted quartile scores, seems to be much higher than it was in the past.

I simply do not see how the ABR is justifying this.
 
Here ya go... the official ABR "study guide": ABR

SMH...

Can anyone recommend a text other than Hall? The updates to the new one are apparently for radiation disasters (useless) and "molecular techniques" (probably useless). The condensed mini-books in the large textbooks seem pretty good (Gunderson, Leibel/Philips). The 5th edition of basic clinical radiobiology by Joiner and van der Kugel was just published. There is also a radiobiology self-assessment guide textbook with questions and flashcards published in 2016 by Yu that is supposed to serve as board prep. Anybody find any of this useful? Did anybody take RABEX this year? Was it at all relevant for the exam? Would sure be nice to know who these people are writing the exam.

I guess that's just one way of dealing with the job market issue. Start dumping out a bunch of rad oncs who are not eligible to take the oral exam.
 
15-25 failures? And you're calling that a bad year? Based on quartile scores, the number of self-reported failures here, and word of mouth from other programs, I think we are looking at 60-70, maybe more, failures this year.
 
15% of 194 test takers is around 30 individuals, to both correct and clarify, in today resident cohort for one of the subject exams. It was less absolute number when there were less residents. If other test past rate was, for example, say 92%, that is 16 failures. So assuming each failure is a unique person (no overlap), then past years passing scores (to the best of my recollection based on previous reported ABR figures that were public information on its website) could have produced 46 unique individuals who did not pass one or the other exam.

The quartiles are deliberately not accurate for overall performance due to lack of break down of raw number of test questions per subject. It is difficult to extrapolate and unfortunate this is the only feedback given. It is one way to cut down on recall strategies, which at one time were fairly frequent.

No interest in fighting or being mean. I am truly sorry to anyone who put in significant time and did not pass. It has the potential to be stressful, but not effect career. Point is solely to reinforce that, for better or worse, these exams appear to fluctuate. This year may be more, but not sure if 60 can be supported from quartile extrapolation. Few posts mention people not taking one or the other exam serious enough. Don't make that mistake is all. Again, that is separate from question of those who did study hard and frustrated by lack of coherent material. Sorry
 
Javk said:
I'm so over this whole field and "weeding people out." Give me a break. If not for the enormous amount of debt I'm in, I'd walk away in a second.
Click to expand...

how many people here have seriously considered "walking away"? for me there are a lot of disappointments about the field that I think about quite often. I am not sure I would pick the same field again TBH. The lack of leadership in the field about important issues really bums me out as well.
 
Alright guys, add me to the list of people who failed radbio here (2 2 1 1). Similar story as several others - studied Hall early, thought I knew the material really well, high percentile on in-service/radoncquestions, consistent 75-80% on las 5 ASTRO exams, but felt like the actual exam did not represent what I studied much at all.

I'm as frustrated as all of you, but at the end of the day I realize that (at least) 80some percent of residents who took the same exam did better than me. So as much as I want to blame the ABR (and I do), I'd like to ask a few specific questions to those who passed to help us who did not, if you would be so kind:

1) I did not find the ASTRO exams (including answers/explanations) to be high yield. If you agree, could you please mention what other materials you used, particularly ones that contained content that showed up on the actual exam?

2) Along the same lines, I felt the exam had a ton of minutiae, for those of you who passed and recognized these small details where do you think you recognized them from? Because I don't recall seeing much if any of it in Hall.

3) Besides content, I also felt the exam was written much differently from the ASTRO exams, which were detailed and really made you think. The actual exam felt more like simple word association of words I never saw before. So are there any other question banks that are more representative of the question styles on the actual exam? Maybe RABEX?(never took those)

4) Did anyone find the Maryland review course to be helpful?

Feedback much appreciated, thanks everyone.
 
radbioistheworst said:
I'm as frustrated as all of you, but at the end of the day I realize that (at least) 80some percent of residents who took the same exam did better than me. So as much as I want to blame the ABR (and I do), I'd like to ask a few specific questions to those who passed to help us who did not, if you would be so kind:
Click to expand...

While this is probably a pretty healthy way to look at things going forward, I almost think you're not giving yourself enough credit either. Chances are you probably studied as much as other people that passed, but were just unlucky in your guesses or unlucky in your exposure to random radiation biology minutiae.

I passed radiation biology and I feel like I studied very similarly to a lot of those that failed. I walked out unsure about 40 questions, so I don't feel smart for passing, just extremely lucky.

But FWIW, which I think don't is much...
- Read through Hall once, then the summaries closer to the test
- Department radiation biology course - based off Hall, not super helpful
- Had access to Osler review course - based off Hall
- radoncquestions - I think these are also based off Hall
- Looked at 2 years of in-service exams
- 4 years of ASTRO study guides - I worked backwards and was initially planning on doing 5-6 total, but they got too repetitive and I felt the yield was decreasing
- used Basic Radiotherapy Physics and Biology - David Chang to help explain things I felt I didn't grasp after reading Hall.
- made flashcards, mostly from ASTRO study guides and figures from an electronic version of Hall
- Co-resident also passed and studied similarly

I agree with the person that suggested maybe doing a journal club with high impact papers discussing advances in oncology, mostly immunotherapy. I don't think it's high-yield, but it is probably some yield and at this point we're grasping at straws. No one that has passed has really recommended anything markedly different from Hall and ASTRO study guides. I did not do the Maryland course, but definitely wonder if it provides material not in Hall.
 
Radbioistheworst: I agree with your sentiment. While I studied hard for this test, the reality is that with scores of 2,2,2,1 there were a number of easy questions covered in Hall that I either overthought or couldn't remember (probably 5-10). Maybe with some more time with Hall I would have got them and moved into passing territory. The reality is that we are competing with a lot of people with strong backgrounds in molecular and cellular biology including PhDs and Holman scholars who have been in the lab for over a year. We aren't going to break into the 3rd and 4th quartiles with these people just by reading Hall, and I think we all saw that 20-25% of material on that exam was testing very specific facts glossed over or not mentioned in Hall. That didn't leave much room for error with everything else. I'm intending to read Hall a few more times throughout the year to really solidify core concepts, and then I'm going to try as many other outside resources as I can. The thing I'm a little unsure about is whether I should completely ignore the ASTRO study guides. They ask minuate as well, but it wasn't the minuate on the exam, so in that regard they are a huge time sink learning very low-yield facts.

As much as we're griping, I do think it was possible to pass this exam reading Hall alone, but probably not by much. Just reading chapter summaries as residents in the past have done and passed? No, not by a long shot. You need to have every figure and chart in that book burned in your memory.

It sounds like the clinical exam had a lot of non-radiation material on it. I'm going to focus on systemic therapies a lot throughout the year, as I think this will (hopefully) be high yield for both clinical and radbio.
 
I think it's fairly common knowledge at this point that there were major issues with this year's exam, especially given the stink here. Hopefully nobody is taking too much grief over it. Personally, nobody said anything to me. I honestly don't know what they expect when they give us an outdated radbio study series and no other guidance as to how to prepare or resources to utilize. We were discouraged from going to review courses, and in retrospect I regret it as I've seen some of their older materials from Maryland and Osler and it looked useful. I think the key for this exam is not utilizing a single resource like Hall or the Astro questions. This stuff was pulled from all over the place, including the primary literature, and we really need to attack it similarly.
 
w00tz said:
While this is probably a pretty healthy way to look at things going forward, I almost think you're not giving yourself enough credit either. Chances are you probably studied as much as other people that passed, but were just unlucky in your guesses or unlucky in your exposure to random radiation biology minutiae.

I passed radiation biology and I feel like I studied very similarly to a lot of those that failed. I walked out unsure about 40 questions, so I don't feel smart for passing, just extremely lucky.

But FWIW, which I think don't is much...
- Read through Hall once, then the summaries closer to the test
- Department radiation biology course - based off Hall, not super helpful
- Had access to Osler review course - based off Hall
- radoncquestions - I think these are also based off Hall
- Looked at 2 years of in-service exams
- 4 years of ASTRO study guides - I worked backwards and was initially planning on doing 5-6 total, but they got too repetitive and I felt the yield was decreasing
- used Basic Radiotherapy Physics and Biology - David Chang .to help explain things I felt I didn't grasp after reading Hall.
- made flashcards, mostly from ASTRO study guides and figures from an electronic version of Hall
- Co-resident also passed and studied similarly

I agree with the person that suggested maybe doing a journal club with high impact papers discussing advances in oncology, mostly immunotherapy. I don't think it's high-yield, but it is probably some yield and at this point we're grasping at straws. No one that has passed has really recommended anything markedly different from Hall and ASTRO study guides. I did not do the Maryland course, but definitely wonder if it provides material not in Hall.
Click to expand...

Helpful suggestions and sentiment, thank you.

My PD was pretty chill, seemed to understand how random it was. Though he did make it a point to make sure I right the ship for next year! (when it officially reflects on the program)
 
For those of you aggravated that ABR only posts three-year cumulative data now, here's the list from 2004-2015.

From left to right, columns are: year, (#, % pass) for clinical, (#, %) physics, (#, %) for radbio. So in 2015, there was a 98% pass rate for physics, but in 2014, it was only 81%.

Code: 
2004    130    90    130    86    130    89
2005    124    89    124    84    124    92
2006    129    95    136    92    125    98
2007    127    95    162    85    161    95
2008    155    98    165    95    165    96
2009    158    98    171    89    169    96
2010    162    96    145    90    145    91
2011    143    94    170    96    168    97
2012    179    95    188    80    188    88
2013    166    93    174    91    174    96
2014    166    92    184    81    184    87
2015    190    97    202    98    202    89

Obviously, it might not be right to compare data from 2004 to today; the test philosophy may have changed, but you have to be the judge of that. This is public data that is taken from the web archive (WayBack Machine), so you can look it up and confirm for yourself if you like.

Some years do seem much harder than others; and it seems like this year was especially bad. The pass rate for physics has ranged from 80% to 98% in this 12-year sample. Although I'm sure there is year-to-year variation in student quality (at least if you measure "quality" very narrowly on a physics test), it's hard to believe there are 10x more "failures" in one year's batch than another year's batch, and more likely that the test was imperfectly designed or calibrated.
 
I am another one of the unfortunate souls who failed. I agree with everyone's thoughts and opinions on this forum.

I also want to address with the ABR why so many people failed this year (or at least make it more transparent about why that was the case); however, I don't think the ABR is going to take us seriously when "angry and frustrated" residents reach out to them.

I talked to my PD about my score, and how it is so strange that so many people failed one or both boards. We discussed the possibility of having the PDs of each program talk with each other and get a number of how many people failed, and subsequently have the PDs reach out to the ABR.

Having multiple PDs call the ABR with data on how many people failed (hypothesis: this hasn't happened in their respective residencies in a long time) will definitely have more weight than residents calling the ABR.

If you agree with this approach, state in the forum and also get your PD involved.
 
Thank you for posting historical failure rates.

The second-hand info (which I completely believe based on the number of 2nd quartile failures) I have on the failure rate percentage this year is so high that it means the majority of programs had at least one resident fail. Clearly not in line with even the worst of prior years.

We are nobodies with no voice, and I have no doubts any demands from us for transparency will fall on deaf ears. It's not surprising to me that this would confuse and bother PDs as well. Your comment is interesting. I am wondering if PDs collectively may be able to push ABR to offer a re-take before next July. At the very least offer some transparency regarding the increased expectation in fund of knowledge in molecular bio and obvious disconnect between the results of their "Angoff method" and residents' actual knowledge after studying common prep materials (i.e., we don't know what they want us to know, but we also don't know where to find or what it is they want us to know). Something to think about. An unprecedented spike in failure rates at the same time a policy to not release scores each year is suspicious and makes me wonder if we were used as guinea pigs.
 
seegeewhys said:
I am another one of the unfortunate souls who failed. I agree with everyone's thoughts and opinions on this forum.

I also want to address with the ABR why so many people failed this year (or at least make it more transparent about why that was the case); however, I don't think the ABR is going to take us seriously when "angry and frustrated" residents reach out to them.

I talked to my PD about my score, and how it is so strange that so many people failed one or both boards. We discussed the possibility of having the PDs of each program talk with each other and get a number of how many people failed, and subsequently have the PDs reach out to the ABR.

Having multiple PDs call the ABR with data on how many people failed (hypothesis: this hasn't happened in their respective residencies in a long time) will definitely have more weight than residents calling the ABR.

If you agree with this approach, state in the forum and also get your PD involved.
Click to expand...

I'm in on something like that. Not sure how well the PDs know each other but it would be nice if they sent a uniform message. If more people agree I'll let mine know that several others are contacting the ABR and we should follow suit.

Also I would still contact the ABR yourself regardless. Not to demand anything but to simply express your concerns. I hate being such a complainer but I'm genuinely still not sure how or what to study. I doubt the complaints will change anything this year, but if everyone has the same message it will be heard.
 
Heard in one ear and out the other. At least that has been my experience with them. Any “feedback” is useless to the point of which you’re asking why bother. Usually this means they will pass 99% next year.

I was an unfortunate soul who had to retake physics and although it made for a challenging year, I guarantee you that you will all get through this with flying colors and that most hiring groups will understand. Usually the ones that do care at this point are the same ones who want “seasoned” rad oncs to work 190 hrs a week...🙂
 
RadOncDoc21 said:
Heard in one ear and out the other. At least that has been my experience with them. Any “feedback” is useless to the point of which you’re asking why bother. Usually this means they will pass 99% next year.

I was an unfortunate soul who had to retake physics and although it made for a challenging year, I guarantee you that you will all get through this with flying colors and that most hiring groups will understand. Usually the ones that do care at this point are the same ones who want “seasoned” rad oncs to work 190 hrs a week...🙂
Click to expand...

Jeez I was under the impression that physics/radbio isn’t even brought up at interviews... Apparently it is?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
 
I'm in agreement with having our Program Directors contact ABR to ask for more answers. They replied to me yesterday and basically said, 'we won't give you any additional information'. If our PD's are asking for answers it will likely go farther. Some things to consider moving forward:

-Who is the appropriate contact person within ABR? It will help if our message is received by the correct person
-What is it that we want? These results are set in stone... barring some miracle they won't be changed. But what should our PD's be pushing for?
  • Transparency as to the results so we know what % actually failed
  • a mid-year re-take given the presumably high number of failures
  • A clearer picture of where exam material is pulled from (Hall? ASTRO Study guides? RABEX?)
  • anything else?
 
radbioistheworst said:
Jeez I was under the impression that physics/radbio isn’t even brought up at interviews... Apparently it is?


Sent from my iPhone using SDN mobile
Click to expand...

It wasn't brought up in any of my interviews. It will eventually come up because when you go through credentialing there is a question about "Have you ever failed a board exam?" If you've already passed it then you just say yes and then in the explanation line just say you've now passed it. If you haven't passed it yet, just write that you are re-taking it.

It explains it in the letter from the ABR, but you technically have 6 years from your graduation date to pass all of the relevant board exams. So, that means the ABR will certify you as "Board eligible" which means your employer can bill for your services to all of the insurance companies without issue.
 
I agree with what Sheldor said. Not a single person asked me about rad bio or physics during job interviews. Failing these tests the first time around shouldn’t interfere with your career at all as long as you pass them next year.

The only caveat I have to add is that in California the state requires you to get a Radiology Supervisor and Operator Certificate, which is (per my understanding) required to supervise the use of linacs. In order to get this certificate, you must pass rad bio, physics and clinical written boards. That means if you are going to be working in California and plan to be alone at a site at any time, you don’t have 6 years to pass your written boards. You’ll need to pass them before you can get your certificate. This is a pretty specific scenario though, and still doesn’t hurt you as long as you pass all three boards the summer after graduation.
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/CDPH Document Library/ControlledForms/cdph8231.pdf

Sheldor said:
It wasn't brought up in any of my interviews. It will eventually come up because when you go through credentialing there is a question about "Have you ever failed a board exam?" If you've already passed it then you just say yes and then in the explanation line just say you've now passed it. If you haven't passed it yet, just write that you are re-taking it.

It explains it in the letter from the ABR, but you technically have 6 years from your graduation date to pass all of the relevant board exams. So, that means the ABR will certify you as "Board eligible" which means your employer can bill for your services to all of the insurance companies without issue.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
ABR Radbio/Physics passing score thresholds [Resurfacing the discussion]
Replies
17
Views
3K
Neuronix
Neuronix
MudPhud20XX
Radbio study group anyone interested in it?
Replies
2
Views
615
evilbooyaa
evilbooyaa
elementaryschooleconomics
Radbio/Physics boards preparation (2020 edition)
Replies
19
Views
9K
maruchan
M
R
Hardcore Physics Discussion
Replies
20
Views
1K
Lamount
L
atomicMD2025
ABR Radbio/Physics/Clinical Exam
Replies
1
Views
2K
xrthopeful
X
Top