Using a Dissection‐based Introductory Laboratory Video to Reduce the Anxiety State of Dissection‐ and Prosection‐based Anatomy Students Prior to their First Cadaver‐based Laboratory Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research shows that while many medical students express a positive attitude toward their first cadaveric laboratory experience, some students undergo mental distress in the form of an increased anxiety state. Although recent studies have shown that this anxiety diminishes after the students' first laboratory experience, the use of targeted preparatory tools to ease the transition is recommended. The goal of this study was to examine whether a short dissection-based introductory video has any effect on the increased anxiety state students face prior to their first cadaver-based laboratory session. Moreover, this study also sought to investigate the role of gender and laboratory type (i.e. dissection and prosection) on student anxiety state. A short (<3.5 minute) introductory video was incorporated into the pre-laboratory sessions of third-year non-medical undergraduate human anatomy students enrolled in dissection (n=198) and prosection (n=75) laboratories at the University of Guelph. The narrated introductory video incorporates uplifting background music and bright scenes showcasing the building, laboratory space, a student-centered laboratory session, and lastly a time-lapse overview of the first laboratory dissection. Self-reported anxiety state was measured using a validated visual analogue scale (VAS), and a validated 6-item abbreviated form of the Spielberger state-trait anxiety inventory survey (6-STAI). Surveys were administered at three-time points during the students' first laboratory: pre-laboratory pre-video (T1), pre-laboratory post-video (T2), and post-laboratory 1 (T3). Overall, there was a reduction in anxiety state level reported at T2 (Fig. 1), however it was not statistically significant (p > .05). A three-way mixed ANOVA showed that three-way interaction between time, gender and anxiety was not statistically significant, F(1.816, 490.282) = 1.771, p = .175. However, there was a statistically significant two-way interaction between time and gender, F(1.816, 490.282) = 5.460, p = .006, along with time and lab-type, F(1.816, 490.282) = 4.344, p = .016. There was a significant simple main effect of gender during T1, F(1, 270) = 11.408, p = .001, during T2, F(1, 270) = 21.553, p = .000, and during T3, F(1, 270) = 5.549, p = .019. Finally, there was a significant simple main effect of lab-type during T3, F(1, 270) = 23.916, p = .000, but not during T1, F(1, 270) = .793, p = .374, or T2 F(1, 270) = 2.240, p = .136. All pairwise comparisons were performed for statistically significant simple main effects. Anxiety levels at all three points were lower in males than females, a mean difference of −10.111 p = .001, −14.298 p = .000, and −5.087, p = .001 were observed. Moreover, T3 anxiety levels were significantly lower in the dissectors cohort than the prosectors cohort, a mean difference of −10.561 p = .000 In conclusion, the results display a significant decrease in the self-reported anxiety state of students enrolled in the dissection cohort immediately after their first laboratory (Fig. 2), suggesting a dissection-based introductory video may be more beneficial for dissectors, as it may have indirectly served as a dissection-guide amongst other things. Moreover, males displayed significantly lower anxiety levels than females at T1, T2, and T3 (Fig. 3), prompting future study to explore this effect. VAS Reported Anxiety Level - Time vs. Gender vs. Lab-type VAS Reported Anxiety Level - Time vs. Lab-type VAS Reported Anxiety Level - Time vs. Gender VAS Reported Anxiety Level - Time vs. Gender vs. Lab-type VAS Reported Anxiety Level - Time vs. Lab-type VAS Reported Anxiety Level - Time vs. Gender
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".