Anatomy in Medical Education: A Canadian Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The anatomical sciences have always been regarded as an essential element of medical education. In Canada, the methodology and time dedicated to anatomy teaching are currently unknown. In an effort to create a comprehensive view of anatomical education in Canadian medical schools, surveys were sent out to course directors and discipline leaders. Participants were asked about gross anatomy, histology, and embryology. Data was collected on total course hours, total classroom hours, large and small group hours as well as laboratory hours for the 2016/17 year. There have been two major changes in the delivery of the anatomical sciences. First, most programs deliver anatomical sciences using an integrative approach. The shift towards integration is also prevalent in the United States of America. Secondly, contact time in the anatomical sciences are at historically low levels. Compared to data published from a similar survey published in 2018, Canada has 72%, 49% and 53% of the hours of gross anatomy, histology, and embryology respectively, compared to the USA. The reasons for the difference between Canadian and USA schools is not known. Possible reasons for the disparity include the steering effects of the CanMEDS framework in Canada and the USMLE (United States Medical Licensing Examinations) Step 1 examination. The CanMEDS framework identifies six core competencies that are meant to ensure that physicians have more of a comprehensive foundation as a medical expert but an understanding of the basic sciences, including anatomy, is not a core competency rather it is assumed to be part of all competencies to some degree. Given there is no explicit role identified for the anatomical, or any other, sciences this may have led to the general decrease in curricular focus. A focus for many medical schools in the USA is student success on the USMLE Step 1 which is focused on basic sciences, including anatomy. Student performance on the USMLE drives curriculum standards. Further investigation is required to determine if the lower amount of anatomical science education received by Canadian medical students affects student performance in clerkship, residency and beyond. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal .
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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".