MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2032486078 · doi:10.3138/jvme.34.2.151

Why Dissection Videos Should Not Replace Cadaver Prosections in the Gross Veterinary Anatomy Curriculum: Results from a Comparative Study

2007· article· en· W2032486078 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Christine L. Theoret, Éric Norman Carmel, Sonia Bernier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Veterinary Medical Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCadaverCurriculumDissection (medical)Gross anatomyTest (biology)MedicineRepeated measures designStatistical significanceSignificant differenceAnatomyPsychologyInternal medicineMathematicsBiologyStatisticsPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The goal of our study was to evaluate the impact of a tool intended to eliminate large-animal cadavers from the anatomy laboratory, in view of their prohibitive cost and the logistic difficulties they pose. We sought to determine whether a commented video of the bovine abdominal cavity could effectively replace a prosection of this region. The hypothesis was that students receiving video instruction would achieve lower scores on a post-instructional exam than those benefiting from a commented cadaver prosection. A commented video of the bovine abdominal cavity was compared to a prosection covering identical material. Seventy-five first-year students, having received no prior instruction on the region of interest, were divided into two groups of equivalent knowledge: group A received prosection instruction (N = 38) and group B, video instruction (N = 37). Following instruction, students completed a test on a cadaver, requiring that they correctly match 15 labeled structures with a list of 40 possible answers. Statistical analysis consisted of a repeated-measures linear model with group (A vs. B) as a between-subject factor and time (pre- vs post-test) as a within-subject factor, with significance at p < or = 0.05. Students in group A achieved mean scores of 9.21 +/- 0.31, while those in group B scored 7.65 +/- 0.31. Although both groups significantly improved following instruction, there was a statistically significant difference in the post-instruction scores between groups A and B (p = 0.0007), in favor of the prosection group. The major comment in favor of cadaver prosection pertained to the sensory experience; in favor of video instruction, students stressed accessibility to the pedagogical material for autonomous learning and revision as well as superior viewing compared to the setup adopted for prosections. In conclusion, while our data suggest that cadaver prosections are superior to video demonstrations, it is apparent that students can learn bovine abdominal anatomy by both methods. Future investigations on the subject of alternative teaching methods are warranted.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.352
Threshold uncertainty score0.534

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.075
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.327 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations46
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Veterinary Medical EducationSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207