Purpose To map the current literature on functional neuroimaging use in medical education research as a novel measurement modality for neurocognitive engagement, learning, and expertise development. Method We searched PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, ERIC, and Web of Science, and hand-searched reference lists of relevant articles on April 4, 2019, and updated the search on July 7, 2020. Two authors screened the abstracts and then full-text articles for eligibility based on inclusion criteria. The data were then charted, synthesized, and analyzed descriptively. Results Sixty-seven articles published between 2007 and 2020 were included in this scoping review. These studies used three main neuroimaging modalities: functional magnetic resonance imaging, functional near-infrared spectroscopy, and electroencephalography. Most of the publications (90%, n = 60) were from the last 10 years (2011–2020). Although these studies were conducted in 16 countries, 68.7% (n = 46) were from three countries: the USA (n = 21), UK (n = 15), and Canada (n = 10). These studies were mainly non-experimental (74.6%, n = 50). Most used neuroimaging techniques to examine psychomotor skill development (57%, n = 38), but several investigated neurocognitive correlates of clinical reasoning skills (22%, n = 15). Conclusion This scoping review maps the available literature on functional neuroimaging use in medical education. Despite the heterogeneity in research questions, study designs, and outcome measures, we identified a few common themes. Included studies are encouraging of the potential for neuroimaging to complement commonly used measures in education research and may help validate/challenge established theoretical assumptions and provide insight into training methods. This review highlighted several areas for further research. The use of these emerging technologies appears ripe for developing precision education, establishing viable study protocols for realistic operational settings, examining team dynamics, and exploring applications for real-time monitoring/intervention during critical clinical tasks.

ImportanceAlthough parental leave is essential in enhancing resident wellness and fostering inclusive workplace environments, residents may often feel discouraged from using parental leave owing to perceived stigma and concerns about possible negative effects on their training.ObjectiveTo examine parental leave usage across multiple institutions and compare residency performance metrics between residents who took parental leave vs their peers who did not take leave.Design, Setting, and ParticipantsThis was a retrospective cross-sectional analysis conducted from April 1, 2020, to July 28, 2022, of educational records. Multicenter data were obtained from 10 Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)–accredited ophthalmology programs across the US. Included ophthalmology residents graduated between 2015 and 2019. Data were analyzed from August 15, 2021, to July 25, 2022.ExposuresPerformance metrics of residents who used parental leave during residency were compared with those of residents who did not take parental leave.Main Outcomes and MeasuresMeasures of performance included the Ophthalmic Knowledge Assessment Program (OKAP) scores, ACGME milestones scores, board examination pass rates, research activity, and surgical volumes.ResultsOf the 283 ophthalmology residents (149 male [52.7%]) included in the study, 44 (15.5%) took a median (IQR) parental leave of 4.5 (2-6) weeks. There were no differences in average OKAP percentiles, research activity, average ACGME milestones scores, or surgical volume between residents who took parental leave and those who did not. Residents who pursued fellowship were less likely to have taken parental leave (odds ratio [OR], 0.43; 95% CI, 0.27-0.68; P < .001), and residents who practiced in private settings after residency were more likely to have taken parental leave (OR, 3.56; 95% CI, 1.79-7.08; P < .001). When stratified by sex, no differences were identified in performance between female residents who took parental leave compared with residents who did not take leave, except a mild surgical number difference in 1 subspecialty category of keratorefractive procedures (difference in median values, −2; 95% CI, −3.7 to −0.3; P = .03).Conclusions and RelevanceIn this multicenter cross-sectional study, no differences in performance metrics were identified between residents taking parental leave compared with their peers. These findings may provide reassurance to trainees and program directors regarding the unlikelihood, on average, that taking adequate parental leave will affect performance metrics adversely.

Background Marfan syndrome and Loeys‐Dietz syndrome are connective tissue disorders associated with cardiac and vascular disease. Patients often require surgical repair, but limited data exist to describe their perioperative management. Aims Our goals were to review the perioperative features of patients with Marfan and Loeys‐Dietz syndrome that may affect anesthesia care and to describe the differences in preoperative clinical characteristics and intra‐operative anesthetic management. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of patients with Marfan and Loeys‐Dietz syndrome who underwent cardiac surgery at a single institution. We collected demographic and perioperative data from the electronic medical record and performed descriptive statistics to characterize the patient populations and describe their anesthetic management. Results In 71 patients (40 Marfan, 31 Loeys‐Dietz), we found significant differences between the Marfan and Loeys‐Dietz patients in airway difficulty, preoperative weight, blood utilization, valvular disease, and age at first cardiac surgery. Patients with Loeys‐Dietz syndrome had higher preoperative rates of severe noncardiac comorbidities, including gastroesophageal reflux and asthma that required chronic medical therapy. Conclusions Despite undergoing similar surgical procedures, patients with Marfan and Loeys‐Dietz syndrome have different intrinsic patient characteristics and comorbidities that may affect their perioperative care. This retrospective cohort study identified some factors, but additional collection and reporting of patient data based on multicenter experience are essential for the ongoing optimization of perioperative care in these patient populations.