RadBio High Yield Summary Webinar

[ARRO]

Registration is now open for ARRO's “High Yield Summary Review of Radiation and Cancer Biology” with Gayle E. Woloschak, PhD. The webinar will take place Tuesday, June 18th, 2019, at 11:00a.m. Eastern Time.

Important: Space is limited. To attend this webinar, register here.

A link with instructions to join the webinar will be sent by e-mail before the session.

Gayle E. Woloschak, PhD, is Professor in the Departments of Radiation Oncology, Radiology, and Cell and Molecular Biology at Northwestern University, Feinberg School of Medicine. She is also the the Editor-in-Chief of the 2019 ASTRO Radiation and Cancer Biology Study Guide.

This webinar will be a high-yield summary review for the ABR qualifying examination in radiation and cancer biology. The webinar will be recorded and made available on the ARRO website after the live session has ended.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[evilbooyaa]

As a current PGY-4 resident, I appreciate ARRO taking the effort to set this up. Keep it up, ARRO!

 

[TDDro]

Thoughts? It was nice to see something that wasn't just powerpointized Hall, but how well does the review material line up with the test material?

 

[KHE88]

I appreciate the effort, but it was mostly classical radiobiology, which was de-emphasized on last year's test.

I understand it's hard to teach the pathways and molecular players because we have no idea which of the 10,000 different three letter acronyms the ABR is going to pull out of thin air this year and use to try and fail people.

Good quick review for the recycled run of the mill content but not the absurd molecular bio stuff that caused everyone to fail last year.

This is really on the ABR to tell us what they want us to know other than "all of cancer biology."

The passing strategy for this test is to way, way, way overstudy Hall and the classical stuff. If you get every single one of those questions right and miss most of the crazy stuff, that should be barely enough to pass. If you screw up any of the regular stuff, you're done for. (but recalls don't exist/matter!)

 

[evilbooyaa]

Thanks again for doing this ARRO. I'm not 'breathing easy' as a result of this, but it is nice having a radiation biologist somewhat outlining the highest yield aspects. Didn't get to watch all of it like I would've liked, so I will be keeping eyes peeled for published slides/video.

 

[ARRO]

You're welcome! Hopefully it was a little helpful. Obviously, this was not supposed to replace a complete review course or didactic curriculum - but maybe this can be a first step towards increased inter-program collaboration and development of resources that are available for all residents nationwide. Now that we have the structure in place for this webinar, our goal is to have more of these -- if people are willing to volunteer their time!

 

[heli0x]

Good quick review for the recycled run of the mill content but not the absurd molecular bio stuff that caused everyone to fail last year.

Appreciate the honest answer. I know there's a very length thread already about this, but for all anxious residents who are sitting the test next month, is there any consensus (especially from those who have already taken it/seen the real questions) on at least some way to get a handle on the 'absurd' questions? like were the review papers listed as secondary sources helpful?

 

[thecarbonionangle]

Appreciate the honest answer. I know there's a very length thread already about this, but for all anxious residents who are sitting the test next month, is there any consensus (especially from those who have already taken it/seen the real questions) on at least some way to get a handle on the 'absurd' questions? like were the review papers listed as secondary sources helpful?

Unfortunately, nobody knows...

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

I have no idea what is meant by high-yield in this context.

There are two fundamental problems with the written boards as currently structured. First there is an overemphasis on basic science (nearly 50% of seat time for written boards is physics and rad/cancer biology). Second, there is no agreed upon curriculum (what will be tested). In the days past it was sufficient to "know" all that was in Hall and Khan. Today, teachers of these subjects publicly admit to not knowing what is expected of them and what will be covered on the tests. This lack of recognized curriculum leads to inefficient study by the test takers. The ABR will never admit it but the test creator has the primary responsibility for alerting the learner what should be known. In this regard the ABR should be ashamed of themselves. Critics will call this teaching to the test but if the test is about competence then who the hell cares how they come to learn it.

 

[ARRO]

Appreciate the honest answer. I know there's a very length thread already about this, but for all anxious residents who are sitting the test next month, is there any consensus (especially from those who have already taken it/seen the real questions) on at least some way to get a handle on the 'absurd' questions? like were the review papers listed as secondary sources helpful?

Agree with @thecarbonionangle -- nobody has taken the test since the new topic list was released or the secondary resources listed... My (unofficial) recommendation is focus on the most important signaling pathways and try to learn the primary and secondary proteins.

 

[ARRO]

Thank you so much for attending or showing interest in our first High Yield Summary Review in Radiation Oncology: Radiation & Cancer Biology with Dr. Gayle Woloschak. We hope it was helpful and we look forward to offering more webinars during the upcoming year.

The powerpoint slides and video files of Dr. Woloschak’s presentation are now available:

Powerpoint slides
Video File: MOV

If you haven’t yet filled out the (very very brief) survey about the webinar or if you have additional suggestions regarding future webinars we’re still like to hear from you– Click Here!

 

[radOresident]

is this everything that was recorded? The mp4 file is only 7 minutes long and the mov file in only 1 hour and doesn't have audio for most of it

 

[scarbrtj]

This presentation seems very oddly similar to one I would have seen in residency 16 years ago. On one hand, this is comforting to me. On the other hand, the bottom fell out testing-wise last year, it would appear, if all you did was learn the stuff in this presentation.
EDIT: Now I say it's similar. Not sure we would have had this slide (see below). We knew about it, but we wouldn't have been so sadomasochistic as to test anybody on it I don't think. It is EXACTLY like this IMHO.

 

[ARRO]

@radOresident- if you download the mov file rather than watching through the preview, you should see the length of the video is 1:50:50 and the audio works throughout. Please let us know if you still have trouble accessing it!

 

[Mandelin Rain]

This presentation seems very oddly similar to one I would have seen in residency 16 years ago. On one hand, this is comforting to me. On the other hand, the bottom fell out testing-wise last year, it would appear, if all you did was learn the stuff in this presentation.
EDIT: Now I say it's similar. Not sure we would have had this slide (see below). We knew about it, but we wouldn't have been so sadomasochistic as to test anybody on it I don't think. It is EXACTLY like this IMHO.

If you look at this cartoon, nearing the bottom right, there are 6 round blue things with some circles that one could read as "You Pee Pee."

 

[KHE88]

This presentation seems very oddly similar to one I would have seen in residency 16 years ago. On one hand, this is comforting to me. On the other hand, the bottom fell out testing-wise last year, it would appear, if all you did was learn the stuff in this presentation.
EDIT: Now I say it's similar. Not sure we would have had this slide (see below). We knew about it, but we wouldn't have been so sadomasochistic as to test anybody on it I don't think. It is EXACTLY like this IMHO.

Thanks for posting this. It helps illustrate the absurdity of the test last year that people who didn't take it didn't know about.

PGY-4s, what you will be walking into is questions drawn from diagrams like this that go:

Which is involved in the activation of IKK?
a. GCN2
b. MALT1
c. NEMO
d. Tollip

I'm not exaggerating. This is what to expect.

 

[TDDro]

Which is involved in the activation of IKK?
a. GCN2
b. MALT1
c. NEMO
d. Tollip

Sure they're all involved,,,but, uh, which one is most likely involved?

 

[deleted941485]

Thanks for posting this. It helps illustrate the absurdity of the test last year that people who didn't take it didn't know about.

PGY-4s, what you will be walking into is questions drawn from diagrams like this that go:

Which is involved in the activation of IKK?
a. GCN2
b. MALT1
c. NEMO
d. Tollip

I'm not exaggerating. This is what to expect.

And yet the bulk of the talk was classic rad bio with only a nod towards molecular. Thought it was a bit of a waste of 2 hours considering the direction these writers are going.

 

[Chartreuse Wombat]

And yet the bulk of the talk was classic rad bio with only a nod towards molecular. Thought it was a bit of a waste of 2 hours considering the direction these writers are going.

Will ARRO be bold enough to survey the members who took the test to determine if the content in the webinar was representative?

 

[evilbooyaa]

Will ARRO be bold enough to survey the members who took the test to determine if the content in the webinar was representative?

I think this would be a valuable directed survey for those who completed the initial survey. I know I would be happy to participate in both.