Microscope Use in Clinical Veterinary Practice and Potential Implications for Veterinary School Curricula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Microscopy (skill of using a microscope) and the concepts of cytology (study of cells) and histology (study of tissues) are most often taught in professional veterinary medicine programs through the traditional method of glass slides and light microscopes. Several limiting factors in veterinary training programs are encouraging educators to explore innovative options for teaching microscopy skills and the concepts of cytology and histology. An anonymous online survey was administered through the Colorado Veterinary Medical Association to Colorado veterinarians working in private practice. It was designed to assess their current usage of microscopes for cytological and histological evaluation of specimens and their perceptions of microscope use in their veterinary education. The first part of the survey was answered by 183 veterinarians, with 104 indicating they had an onsite diagnostic lab. Analysis pertaining to the use of the microscope in practice and in veterinary programs was conducted on this subset. Most respondents felt the amount of time spent in the curriculum using a microscope was just right for basic microscope use and using the microscope for viewing and learning about normal and abnormal histological sections and clinical cytology. Participants felt more emphasis could be placed on clinical and diagnostic cytology. Study results suggest that practicing veterinarians frequently use microscopes for a wide variety of cytological diagnostics. However, only two respondents indicated they prepared samples for histological evaluation. Veterinary schools should consider these results against the backdrop of pressure to implement innovative teaching techniques to meet the changing needs of the profession.
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 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 | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".