Learning pathology: Difference between revisions

(4 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)

Line 3:

|author2=

}}

</noinclude>The goal of this resource is to make a new pathology trainee able to properly handle at least 70% of cases that are expected at an average general pathology department, including the exclusion of the most pertinent differential diagnoses thereof. Its aim is to present you at least '''one way''' of doing things that is at least adequate for a particular situation, ~~so that although~~ there may be various routines at various locations, adherence to these methods should not result in a worse reprimand from a senior than ''"although that was adequate, that is not how we do it here"''. Still '''ask for help''' whenever needed, such as first time you are doing something, or whenever you are not sure about what to do, especially when doing something potentially irreversible.

</noinclude>The goal of this resource is to make a new pathology trainee able to properly handle at least 70% of cases that are expected at an average general pathology department, including the exclusion of the most pertinent differential diagnoses thereof. Its aim is to present you at least '''one way''' of doing things that is at least adequate for a particular situation. Still, there may be various routines at various locations, but adherence to these methods should not result in a worse reprimand from a senior than ''"although that was adequate, that is not how we do it here"''. Still '''ask for help''' whenever needed, such as first time you are doing something, or whenever you are not sure about what to do, especially when doing something potentially irreversible. When confronted with a question, until you are certain what to answer, rather say something in the line of "I'm not sure, but I'll find out and get back to you".

==What a pathologist needs to memorize==

Line 76:

*'''[https://www.google.com/ Googling]''' what you are looking for. You may add the word '''pathology''' or equivalent if results are too clinical or layman-oriented. Before even reading the title of results, first look at the URL. If it is from a reputable organization then you may proceed to check if the title is pertinent to what you are looking for, but if it is from an unfamiliar site then you should only proceed if you don't find a better source among your search results. On such unfamiliar sites, you will need to look for additional proof of reliability such as authorship of the content in order to use it as part of any diagnostic decisions.

*'''[https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/ ChatGPT]''' is useful in answering specific questions, or generating texts with particular content or format. However, don't make significant diagnostic decisions based on its answers without first verifying it with reliable sources, as it might give a false answer despite appearing confident.

You can generally rely on ~~books and~~ articles for presumably '''well-established''' topics (such as anatomy, and relatively common diseases). However, for potentially controversial and experimental topics, you generally need to ask yourself if the author has a conflict of interest before using its information for important decisions.

You can generally rely on online articles for presumably '''well-established''' topics (such as anatomy, and relatively common diseases). However, for potentially controversial and experimental topics, you generally need to ask yourself if the author has a conflict of interest before using its information for important decisions. In such cases, seek highly reliable sources, such as peer reviewed review articles, or professional organizations and societies. In contrast, beware of sites with flashy images, as it indicates a financial interest.

'''[[Ask a colleague]]''' at least whenever your own memory or a resource search is not enough, and there is a significant risk that you may do something irreversible that will negatively affect a patient.

Line 127:

Be tolerant to encountering many '''repetitions''' of the same content in related articles, since for example a [[cervical biopsy]] and a [[cervical cone]] have similar microscopic evaluation.

==Using AI "chatbots"==

For AI "chatbots" (such as ChatGPT, Gemini or Copilot), you can generally trust a simple answer to a simple and presumably common question. More complex answers generally require you to provide more '''details''' together with your question. For example, a question of "what is the risk that this patient has..." would require you to provide a patient summary for a better answer, while avoiding identifiable information.<ref group="notes">See [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/de-identification/index.html#standard HHS de-identification standards] for what counts as identifiable information</ref> '''Avoid leading''' prompts (such as "these features indicate invasiveness, right?") but rather keep them neutral and open-minded.

==Using question banks==

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 |author2=
 }}
-</noinclude>The goal of this resource is to make a new pathology trainee able to properly handle at least 70% of cases that are expected at an average general pathology department, including the exclusion of the most pertinent differential diagnoses thereof. Its aim is to present you at least '''one way''' of doing things that is at least adequate for a particular situation, so that although there may be various routines at various locations, adherence to these methods should not result in a worse reprimand from a senior than ''"although that was adequate, that is not how we do it here"''. Still '''ask for help''' whenever needed, such as first time you are doing something, or whenever you are not sure about what to do, especially when doing something potentially irreversible.
+</noinclude>The goal of this resource is to make a new pathology trainee able to properly handle at least 70% of cases that are expected at an average general pathology department, including the exclusion of the most pertinent differential diagnoses thereof. Its aim is to present you at least '''one way''' of doing things that is at least adequate for a particular situation. Still, there may be various routines at various locations, but adherence to these methods should not result in a worse reprimand from a senior than ''"although that was adequate, that is not how we do it here"''. Still '''ask for help''' whenever needed, such as first time you are doing something, or whenever you are not sure about what to do, especially when doing something potentially irreversible. When confronted with a question, until you are certain what to answer, rather say something in the line of "I'm not sure, but I'll find out and get back to you".
 ==What a pathologist needs to memorize==
@@ Line 76: / Line 76: @@
 *'''[https://www.google.com/ Googling]''' what you are looking for. You may add the word '''pathology''' or equivalent if results are too clinical or layman-oriented. Before even reading the title of results, first look at the URL. If it is from a reputable organization then you may proceed to check if the title is pertinent to what you are looking for, but if it is from an unfamiliar site then you should only proceed if you don't find a better source among your search results. On such unfamiliar sites, you will need to look for additional proof of reliability such as authorship of the content in order to use it as part of any diagnostic decisions.
 *'''[https://openai.com/blog/chatgpt/ ChatGPT]''' is useful in answering specific questions, or generating texts with particular content or format. However, don't make significant diagnostic decisions based on its answers without first verifying it with reliable sources, as it might give a false answer despite appearing confident.
-You can generally rely on books and articles for presumably '''well-established''' topics (such as anatomy, and relatively common diseases). However, for potentially controversial and experimental topics, you generally need to ask yourself if the author has a conflict of interest before using its information for important decisions.
+You can generally rely on online articles for presumably '''well-established''' topics (such as anatomy, and relatively common diseases). However, for potentially controversial and experimental topics, you generally need to ask yourself if the author has a conflict of interest before using its information for important decisions. In such cases, seek highly reliable sources, such as peer reviewed review articles, or professional organizations and societies. In contrast, beware of sites with flashy images, as it indicates a financial interest.
 '''[[Ask a colleague]]''' at least whenever your own memory or a resource search is not enough, and there is a significant risk that you may do something irreversible that will negatively affect a patient.
@@ Line 127: / Line 127: @@
 Be tolerant to encountering many '''repetitions''' of the same content in related articles, since for example a [[cervical biopsy]] and a [[cervical cone]] have similar microscopic evaluation.
+==Using AI "chatbots"==
+For AI "chatbots" (such as ChatGPT, Gemini or Copilot), you can generally trust a simple answer to a simple and presumably common question. More complex answers generally require you to provide more '''details''' together with your question. For example, a question of "what is the risk that this patient has..." would require you to provide a patient summary for a better answer, while avoiding identifiable information.<ref group="notes">See [https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-professionals/special-topics/de-identification/index.html#standard HHS de-identification standards] for what counts as identifiable information</ref> '''Avoid leading''' prompts (such as "these features indicate invasiveness, right?") but rather keep them neutral and open-minded.
 ==Using question banks==

Learning pathology: Difference between revisions

Navigation menu

Search