Nerve Surgeons’ Assessment of the Role of Eduard Pernkopf's Atlas of Topographic and Applied Human Anatomy in Surgical Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Pernkopf's atlas of Anatomy contains anatomical plates with detailed images of the peripheral nerves. Its use is controversial due to the author's association with the "Third Reich" and the potential depiction of victims of the Holocaust. The ethical implications of using this atlas for informing surgical planning have not been assessed. OBJECTIVE: To (1) assess the role of Pernkopf's atlas in nerve surgeons' current practice and (2) determine whether a proposal for its ethical handling may provide possible guidance for use in surgery and surgical education. METHODS: Members of American Society for Peripheral Nerve and PASSIO Education (video-based learning platform) were surveyed and 182 responses collected. The survey introduced the historical origin of Pernkopf's atlas, and respondents were asked whether they would use the atlas under specific conditions to serve as a recommendation for its ethical handling. An anatomical plate comparison between Netter's and Pernkopf's atlases was performed to compare anatomical accuracy and surgical utility. RESULTS: Fifty-nine percent of respondents were aware of Pernkopf's atlas, with 13% currently using it. Aware of the historical facts, 69% were comfortable using the atlas, 15% uncomfortable, and 17% undecided. Additional information on conditions for an ethical approach to the use of the atlas led 76% of those "uncomfortable" and "undecided" to becoming "comfortable" with use. CONCLUSION: While the use of Pernkopf's atlas remains controversial, a proposal detailing conditions for an ethical approach in its use provides new guidance in surgical planning and education.
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 | 0.015 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".