The relative effectiveness of computer‐based and traditional resources for education in anatomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is increasing use of computer-based resources to teach anatomy, although no study has compared computer-based learning to traditional. In this study, we examine the effectiveness of three formats of anatomy learning: (1) a virtual reality (VR) computer-based module, (2) a static computer-based module providing Key Views (KV), (3) a plastic model. We conducted a controlled trial in which 60 undergraduate students had ten minutes to study the names of 20 different pelvic structures. The outcome measure was a 25 item short answer test consisting of 15 nominal and 10 functional questions, based on a cadaveric pelvis. All subjects also took a brief mental rotations test (MRT) as a measure of spatial ability, used as a covariate in the analysis. Data were analyzed with repeated measures ANOVA. The group learning from the model performed significantly better than the other two groups on the nominal questions (Model 67%; KV 40%; VR 41%, Effect size 1.19 and 1.29, respectively). There was no difference between the KV and VR groups. There was no difference between the groups on the functional questions (Model 28%; KV, 23%, VR 25%). Computer-based learning resources appear to have significant disadvantages compared to traditional specimens in learning nominal anatomy. Consistent with previous research, virtual reality shows no advantage over static presentation of key views.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".