The Utilisation of Radiology for the Teaching of Anatomy in Canadian Medical Schools
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the utilisation of diagnostic imaging (radiology) as a department and/or imaging medium in the teaching of anatomy at the Canadian undergraduate medical education level. METHODS: The study objectives were achieved through the use of a questionnaire and a literature review. The anatomy department head at each English-based Canadian Medical School was contacted, and the individual most responsible for anatomy teaching in the medical school curriculum was identified. This individual was subsequently asked to complete a questionnaire that evaluated the involvement of radiology for anatomy teaching in their curriculum. RESULTS: The use and integration of radiology is a common practice in the teaching of anatomy in Canadian undergraduate medicine. Although the methods and extent of its use varied among institutions, every English-based Canadian medical school, except one, was using diagnostic imaging material in their instruction of anatomy. Furthermore, half of the institutions had a radiologist as a faculty member of their anatomy department to help teach and to use imaging to its full potential. DISCUSSION: This audit of anatomy departments suggests that diagnostic imaging has an important role to play in anatomy teaching in Canadian English-speaking medical schools.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it