MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2735135124 · doi:10.2147/amep.s139893

Effectiveness of teaching facial anatomy through cadaver dissection on aesthetic physicians' knowledge

2017· article· en· W2735135124 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Narendra Kumar

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Medical Education and Practice · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMonash UniversityMcGill University
KeywordsCadaverDissection (medical)AnatomyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Cadaver dissection for anatomy training provides an opportunity to understand the precise nature of human tissues with their clinical and structural relationships. This study assessed the effectiveness of this practical educational intervention for teaching applied facial anatomy on the knowledge and confidence of aesthetic physicians. Methods and materials: A total of 168 aesthetic physicians underwent facial applied anatomy training for 2 days at The Academia, Singapore. The 2-day course encompassed detailed facial anatomy of neurovasculature, fat compartments, ligaments, and muscles followed by simulated practice of safer injection techniques. To enable quality interaction between the participants and the faculties, the delegates were divided into four groups. Academic impact of the program was evaluated by a pre-course and post-course multiple choice question (MCQ) test. Participants, also completed a paper-based feedback on their knowledge, skills, and confidence in performing nonsurgical facial aesthetic procedures. Different sets of MCQs were utilized for pre-course post-course test to avoid any recall bias. Results: All 168 participants completed the test and were included in the analysis. Mean pre-course and post-course test scores were 4.8 (standard deviation [SD] 1.9) and 7.6 (SD 1.7), respectively ( p <0.001 vs pre-course test). All the four groups showed improvement in their facial anatomy knowledge based on the comparison of pre-course and post-course test results ( p <0.001). The average post-course test score in all the groups from baseline significantly improved. However, there was no statistical difference in pre-course and post-course test evaluation between the groups ( p =0.32). Conclusion: Our results showed that cadaver anatomy training improved applied facial anatomy knowledge for most of the aesthetic practitioners, which may enhance their confidence in performing nonsurgical facial aesthetic procedures. Keywords: MCQ, facial anatomy, non-surgical, anatomy teaching, simulation, anatomy ­knowledge, pre-course test, post-course test

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.588

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.386 · 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

Citations26
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Medical Education and PracticeSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207