Spatial abilities in an elective course of applied anatomy after a problem‐based learning curriculum
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
A concern on the level of anatomy knowledge reached after a problem-based learning curriculum has been documented in the literature. Spatial anatomy, arguably the highest level in anatomy knowledge, has been related to spatial abilities. Our first objective was to test the hypothesis that residents are interested in a course of applied anatomy after a problem-based learning curriculum. Our second objective was to test the hypothesis that the interest of residents is driven by innate higher spatial abilities. Fifty-nine residents were invited to take an elective applied anatomy course in a prospective study. Spatial abilities were measured with a redrawn Vandenberg and Kuse Mental Rotations Test in two (MRT A) and three (MRT C) dimensions. A need for a greater knowledge in anatomy was expressed by 25 residents after a problem-based learning curriculum. MRT A and C scores obtained by those choosing (n = 25) and not choosing (n = 34) applied anatomy was not different (P = 0.46 and P = 0.38, respectively). Percentage of residents in each residency program choosing applied anatomy was different [23 vs. 31 vs. 100 vs. 100% in Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, Surgery, and Anesthesia, respectively; P < 0.0001]. The interest of residents in applied anatomy was not driven by innate higher spatial abilities. Our applied anatomy course was chosen by many residents because of training needs rather than innate spatial abilities. Future research will need to assess the relationship of individual differences in spatial abilities to learning spatial anatomy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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