Essential Anatomy for Clerkships and Electives–A Multi‐Site Survey of Clinical Educators
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction In the era of radical medical curriculum reform, the preclinical anatomy curriculum should not only prepare students for USMLE Step 1, but also provide sufficient knowledge for clinical clerkships and electives. Unfortunately, data regarding the anatomical knowledge considered essential for any given clerkship or elective is lacking. Aim This IRB study addresses the lack of data on the anatomical knowledge required for clinical clerkships and electives using an online survey provided to clerkship/elective educators to evaluate the importance of 98 anatomical items (tissues and structures) across all body regions using a 1‐to‐4 scale (1 = not important, 4 = essential). Methods For each clerkship/elective, the average ranking for each survey item was calculated for each body region; subsequently, an average ranking was calculated across all body regions for each clerkship/elective, as well as a “meta‐rank” for groups of clerkships/electives that were classified as Primary Care, Surgical/Procedural (further subdivided into specialties that ranked all anatomy in all regions vs. those that ranked only specific anatomy in some regions), or Non‐Surgical/Procedural. Results The initial data was from 165 clinical educators (clerkship/elective directors, attending physicians, residents, fellows) in 19 clerkships/electives at 13 medical schools. The table shows the average rankings for each clerkship/elective across all body regions, as well as a “meta‐rank” for broad practice areas. Discussion and Conclusions This expanding database represents the first comprehensive evaluation of the importance to clinical educators of specific tissues and structures in each anatomical region. While some of the average anatomy rankings for specific clerkships/electives were as might be expected (e.g., most surgical/procedural fields ranked anatomy highly whereas psychiatry ranked it very low), there were surprises (e.g., primary care fields as a whole ranked anatomy relatively highly). The rankings of specific anatomy within each region in this database (to be presented at the meeting) will provide detailed information regarding specific anatomical content that anatomists and medical schools can use to focus on in the preclinical years to prepare their students for success in their undergraduate and graduate medical clinical experiences. Average Rankings Across Body Regions image Average Rankings Across Body Regions 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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".