A Guide to the Anatomy of the Anterior Abdominal Wall: Examining the Impact of Virtual Dissection on the Learner's Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction As technology continuously improves, there is an increasing demand for higher quality educational resources. The internet has decreased barriers of accessing quality educational resources for students of all backgrounds. In medical education, the costs of obtaining and maintaining cadavers for the understanding of the human body can be a major expense. Furthermore, due to the effects of the COVID‐19 pandemic in minimizing in‐person learning, the demand for quality anatomy resources is at an all‐time high. Objectives This project aimed to create a quality and informative dissection of the anterior abdominal wall for learners, and to investigate the impact of virtual learning as a supplementary resource. Methods A complete and skilled dissection of the anterior abdominal wall was recorded. In addition, specific anatomical features were explained during the recording. The footage was then edited via Camtasia, a video editing software, where visual features, audio features, a comprehensive quiz, and the video's introductory and outgoing effects were prepared. The final production was uploaded to YouTube and prepared for medical students at the University of British Columbia, as well as the online community. A survey was linked at the end of the video, which was open for anyone who watched the production. Results People from across the world watched and provided feedback on this dissection. While a majority of feedback received came from respondents in North America, some comments were received from viewers in Brazil, India and China. 94.7% of respondents were actively completing or had completed an MD Degree and 5.3% of participants were actively completing or had completed an MBBS program. 84.2% of participants used this resource to prepare for their anatomy labs and dissections, 63.2% used this video to prepare for their anatomy lectures, and 68.4% of people used this to prepare for their examinations. Overall, 21.1% of respondents agreed and 78.9% of respondents strongly agreed that this online resource assisted them in fulfilling their purposes of watching this video. Conclusion Responses from the online survey indicate that using gross anatomy dissection videos helped improve the learning experience of anatomy and more resources should be created to fill this demand. Video Link: https://youtu.be/_Cl1djsxQlY
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".