The anatomy course during the time of COVID‐19 ‐ students’ initiation of reflections on life's passing in dissection and non‐dissection anatomy courses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background During the COVID‐19 pandemic, in‐person cadaveric dissection to teach anatomy was often omitted. While knowledge‐based assessment can be evaluated via remote exams, soft skills (e.g., reflections on the topic of death) can often be overlooked. This study aims to quantitatively investigate how different anatomy course formats play a role in initiating students’ reflections on life's passing, during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Method In the fall semester of 2020, 216 medical, dental, premedical undergraduate, and health sciences students from 14 international universities discussed (in small groups) differences in their anatomy courses as part of an online exchange program. Formats of anatomy education delivery in the 14 universities ranged from dissection, hybrid dissection‐prosection, and prosection only, to no laboratory exposure during the pandemic. Students’ responses to the question, “Did/does your Anatomy course initiate your thinking on life's passing?” were collected utilizing a multiple‐choice question and a short essay. Statistical analysis was performed using Chi‐square analysis. Results 105 students dissected (group 1), 21 had a hybrid dissection‐prosection class (group 2), and 79 had no dissection (group 3). 11 students did not have an anatomy course. Within the 3 groups, 149 students had exposure to human anatomical specimens and 52 students did not. A majority of students in groups 1 and 2 reported that the anatomy course helped them to initiate reflections on the topic of death, compared to those in group 3 (75% and 71% respectively, versus 36%, p<0.05). The majority of students who had exposure to human anatomical specimens thought that the course did initiate thoughts about life's passing, compared to students who did not have this exposure (p<0.05). Students who did not dissect during the time of the pandemic felt that talking with their peers who did dissect during this period (i.e., at schools that did offer dissection) resulted in initiating thoughts about the topic of death. Discussion Anatomy dissection courses and exposure to human anatomical specimens help initiate reflection on the topic of life's passing. During the COVID‐19 pandemic interactions between students who do not dissect and their peers who do dissect help initiate thoughts about the topic of death in the non‐dissecting students, as reflected by their essays. Without exposure to human bodies there is less chance that students will think about this subject. Conclusion Anatomy dissection courses are important for the initiation of students’ feelings about the topic of death. During the COVID‐19 pandemic, dissecting students can help non‐dissecting students with initiating reflections about life's passing by discussing this subject with each other.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".