Virtual Microscopy in Histopathology Training: Changing Student Attitudes in 3 Successive Academic Years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Several veterinary faculties have integrated virtual microscopy into their curricula in recent years to improve and refine their teaching techniques. The many advantages of this recent technology are described in the literature, including remote access and an equal and constant slide quality for all students. However, no study has analyzed the change of perception toward virtual microscopy at different time points of students' academic educations. In the present study, veterinary students in 3 academic years were asked for their perspectives and attitudes toward virtual microscopy and conventional light microscopy. Third-, fourth-, and fifth-year veterinary students filled out a questionnaire with 12 questions. The answers revealed that virtual microscopy was overall well accepted by students of all academic years. Most students even suggested that virtual microscopy be implemented more extensively as the modality for final histopathology examinations. Nevertheless, training in the use of light microscopy and associated skills was surprisingly well appreciated. Regardless of their academic year, most students considered these skills important and necessary, and they felt that light microscopy should not be completely replaced. The reasons for this view differed depending on academic year, as the perceived main disadvantage of virtual microscopy varied. Third-year students feared that they would not acquire sufficient light microscopy skills. Fifth-year students considered technical difficulties (i.e., insufficient transmission speed) to be the main disadvantage of this newer teaching modality.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".