Musculoskeletal Anatomy Education: Evaluating the Influence of Different Methods of Delivery on Medical Students Perception and Academic Performance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Medical schools have traditionally used a dissection‐based approach for educating students about musculoskeletal (MSK) anatomy. There is a growing trend towards the use of prosected, and 2 or 3‐D imaging materials as learning resources. While data may suggest that these methods of delivery enhance the learning environment, controversy still exists among medical educators about the most efficient or effective way to educate students. Purpose The main objective of this investigation was to examine whether the method of educational delivery would influence student perceptions about learning, and academic performance on MSK anatomy exams. Methods Undergraduate students from the same medical school were compared. One cohort was educated using a dissection based teaching model; the second cohort was taught using a prosection based method of delivery. All other aspects of the MSK curriculum were the same, including contact hours. Information was gathered about student perceptions using a standardized survey that compared 6 different methods of delivery (dissection/prosection/lecture/case‐based/on‐line/medical imaging) on 8 specific learning objectives. Survey results were compared against student performance on MSK practical exams. Results Ninety‐three students (dissection=39, prosection=54) participated. Only 27 students had previously taken an anatomy course. Both groups rated learning via medical imaging and case based scenarios highly. Each cohort ranked their specific method of delivery (dissect vs prosect) in the top 3. There was no significant difference in the academic performance between the groups. Conclusions Data support the inclusion of medical imaging and case‐based scenarios as a key component of MSK anatomy curriculum, but suggest that little difference exists in student performance when comparing dissection and prosection based curriculums. These results should help guide the selection of effective MSK anatomy delivery methods within medical programs. Support or Funding Information Funding provided through the University of Manitoba teaching and Learning Enhancement Fund
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 | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".