Evaluating Musculoskeletal Anatomy Knowledge Among First-Year Medical Students: Comparison of Anatomy Examination Scores Between Cohorts Receiving a Pre-Examination Review Session Versus Focused Clinical Skills Teaching Session
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Introduction: Musculoskeletal (MSK) complaints are among the most common reasons patients seek medical care in the US. Appropriate management of MSK problems requires foundational knowledge of MSK anatomy. However, several studies in the US and Canada have highlighted insufficient anatomy knowledge among medical students and residents. Objective: This study evaluated MSK anatomy final examination scores between two successive cohorts of first-year medical students to compare two interventions: (1) a teaching-assistant-led pre-examination review session in the first cohort; (2) a clinical skills teaching session of the knee and shoulder joints, which was reinforced during anatomy dissection sessions within the same semester of the second cohort. Methods: The Class of 2025 received traditional anatomy education during their first year of medical school, as well as a pre-examination review session led by teaching assistants. The Class of 2026 received the traditional anatomy curriculum without the benefits of a pre-examination review session led by teaching assistants. Instead, the Class of 2026 received a newly added clinical skills teaching involving the knee and shoulder joints. We analyzed scores from a 30-question multiple-choice anatomy final examination completed during March of each class’s first year of medical school. Of these 30 questions, six were directly related to the muscles, ligaments, and bones of the knee and shoulder. Unpaired two-tailed t-tests were used to determine statistical significance of both comparisons. Results: Scores from all 77 students in each class were analyzed. For the entire test of 30 questions, the Class of 2025 (who received the pre-examination review session) did not perform significantly better than the Class of 2026 (average scores 84.7% versus 82.3%, p=0.142). For the 6 knee/shoulder-specific questions, the Class of 2026 (who received focused clinical skills teaching of the knee and shoulder joints) also did not perform significantly better than the Class of 2025 (average scores 92.0% versus 91.6 %, p=0.845). Interestingly, within the same cohort, students in the Class of 2026 scored 12.1% higher on the 6 knee and shoulder questions than on the remaining 24 questions. On the other hand, students in the Class of 2025 scored only 8.6% higher on those 6 questions than on the remaining 24 questions. The difference (12.1% versus 8.6%) approached significance (p=0.06) but did not achieve statistical significance at p<0.05. Discussion: Despite not having a pre-exam review session, the Class of 2026 did not score significantly worse than the Class of 2025 on either the 30 general MSK questions or the 6 knee/shoulder-specific questions. It is interesting that the difference between the 6-question and 24-question averages among the two classes approached significance (p=0.06) but did not achieve statistical significance at p<0.05. Longitudinal assessments may further elucidate the differential effects of pre-examination review sessions and clinical skills teaching on medical students’ anatomy knowledge of the musculoskeletal system. Target Audience: US and Canada medical school education directors; preclinical medical students.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,008 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».