MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Gross Anatomical Knowledge Loss in Fourth‐Year Nursing Students

2022· article· en· W4225392810 on OpenAlexaff
Yuwaraj Narnaware

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComprehensionMedicineKnowledge retentionPsychologyNurse educationMedical educationNursingComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human anatomy and physiology are considered a cornerstone of health‐related professional education and serve as a prerequisite for future nursing courses (McVicar et al., 2015). Numerous research studies show great difficulty in transferring fundamental knowledge of these courses to clinical and subsequent years of these disciplines (Bhangu et al., 2010; Narnaware and Neumeier, 2020; Narnaware, Y. 2021a). However, most of the knowledge acquisition, transfer/lost, and retention studies have been carried out in medical and allied health students and have been assessed rarely in nursing students. We have previously shown that the second‐and third‐year nursing students lose approximately 29.0% and 31.0% of their second and third‐year anatomical knowledge, retaining about 71.0% and 69.0% within two years (Narnaware and Neumeier, 2020; Narnaware and Neumeier, 2020b). However, anatomical knowledge transfer/loss, retention, and application in fourth‐year nursing students have not been assessed yet. The present study's main objective, therefore, is to assess the anatomical knowledge loss among fourth‐year nursing students and determine if the retention level is organ system‐specific. To evaluate the knowledge loss in fourth‐year nursing students, they were quizzed on eleven anatomy organ systems using the online quizzing system Kahoot. Each Kahoot quiz included nine to eleven knowledge and comprehension level multiple‐choice questions. These scores were compared to first‐year quiz scores on the same content to determine overall knowledge loss over the fourth year. Data were statistically analyzed using SPSS II, and means were compared using two‐way ANOVA. The scores are shown for each organ system by reporting the mean and standard deviation (±SD). Statistical significance was set at P < 0.05 for all tests. The results show that there was a significant decrease in the overall mean score from 83.05 ± 8.34 (± SD) in the first year to 53.9 ± 9.4 (±SD) in the fourth year (P=0.0001) (Figure 1). This equates to a 29.6% loss and 70.4% overall retention of anatomical knowledge over two years. However, there was no significant difference in mean scores between the third‐year and four‐year nursing students. The mean score in fourth‐year nursing students was higher by approximately 3.4% than the third‐year students. System‐specific knowledge loss shown in table 1 was highest for the head and neck lymphatic (55.7%), cranial nerves (44.1%), lymphatic (37.6%), and special senses (37.0%). This system‐specific knowledge loss was followed by the integumentary system (28.2%), vascular system (27.6%), muskulo‐skeletal (26.6%), and nervous system (25.1%). The loss was the lowest for the genitourinary system (21.2%), respiratory system (13.9%), and gastrointestinal system (12.0%). The present study reveals that nursing students lost more knowledge in the fourth‐year than first‐year and comparatively less than third‐year but retained much higher anatomical knowledge than medical and allied health students reported. This study provides knowledge retention for different body systems. It also identifies where nursing students' knowledge retention gaps exist so that those can be addressed by developing a robust interventional strategy for nursing students in the future.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.684
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe FASEB JournalSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207