Spatial Abilities Training in Anatomy Education: A Systematic Review
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
Spatial abilities have been correlated to anatomy knowledge assessment and spatial training has been found to improve spatial abilities in previous systematic reviews. The objective of this systematic review was to evaluate spatial abilities training in anatomy education. A literature search was done from inception to 3 August 2017 in Scopus ® and several databases on the EBSCOhost platform. Citations were reviewed and those involving anatomy education, an intervention, and a spatial abilities test were retained and the corresponding full‐text articles were reviewed for inclusion. Before and after training studies, as well as comparative training programs, relating a spatial training intervention to spatial abilities were eligible. Of the 2,405 citations obtained, 52 articles were identified and reviewed, yielding eight eligible articles. Instruction in anatomy and mental rotations training were found to improve spatial abilities. For the seven studies retained for the meta‐analysis that included the effect of interventions on spatial abilities test scores, the pooled treatment effect difference was 0.49 (95% CI [0.17; 0.82]; n = 11) improvement. For the two studies that included the practice effect on spatial abilities test scores in a control group, the pooled treatment effect difference was 0.47 (95% CI [−0.03; 0.97]; n = 2) improvement. In these two studies, the impact of the intervention on spatial abilities test scores was found despite the practice effect. Evidence was found for improvement of spatial abilities in anatomy education using instruction in anatomy and mental rotations training.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it