A Novel Method for Preparing Histology Slides to Integrate the Teaching of Gross and Microscopic Anatomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors have previously reported the development of a novel technique for sampling and preparing tissue slides for routine microscopic examination, without the use of a microtome. Termed "RAMP" (Rapid Adhesive Mediated Procedure), this simple, albeit somewhat crude, technique holds promise as a method that can be used in the field by veterinary practitioners for rapid microscopic evaluations to obtain early preliminary estimates of the nature of a mass or lesion. We incorporated the use of this method into a gross anatomy course in an attempt to gauge its utility for novices in tissue sampling and histology slide preparation. By having each group of students take a tissue sample from their cadaver, the activity simulated an actual necropsy situation in which practitioners in the field might use the technique. Because students were able to follow their specimen from sampling to microscopic examination, the activity provided a valuable integration of their learning of gross and microscopic anatomy. We conducted an evaluation of the process and the resulting slides with two successive classes of students. We conclude that the RAMP method is reasonably successful in the hands of individuals not trained in tissue preparation; was well received by the students as a valuable learning tool; and could potentially yield useful histological information for practicing veterinarians. Limitations of the method are also discussed.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 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".