Examining the Impact of Cadaver‐Based Anatomy Laboratory Experiences on Medical Students Through a Thematic Analysis of their Written Reflections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cadaver dissection has long been considered the gold standard pedagogical approach in anatomical education for its ability to teach students not only anatomy knowledge, but also non‐traditional discipline‐independent skills that are pertinent to professional training programs in healthcare. With the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic in 2020, many medical schools were forced to adopt remote or blended teaching formats, reducing students’ dissection time in the anatomy laboratory. Some have raised concerns about how having limited interaction with body donors in anatomical education may dehumanize medical students’ learning experiences and alter their learning outcomes, but there is a paucity of research in this area. To examine how reduced exposure to cadavers during the COVID‐19 pandemic may impact the student experience, a pre‐pandemic assessment must first be made. Halfway through the first year of medical school, McGill University medical students consider the meaning of their anatomy laboratory experience and how it has contributed to their future career through a written reflective assignment. The present study aimed to describe how students reflected on their laboratory experience and its importance in their training as both individuals and future healthcare professionals, prior to the onset of COVID‐19. Reflections written by the McGill University medical class of 2023, whose time in the anatomy laboratory was not limited by the pandemic, were analyzed through the six‐step framework to thematic analysis by Braun and Clarke (2006). Three undergraduate research students (BB, MR, IG) inductively coded students’ reflections (n = 134) using NVivo software to identify preliminary themes. Themes were reviewed, defined, and named through discussion with the entire research team (all listed authors). Three central themes were identified: (1) philosophical reflections, (2) perceived outcomes of the anatomy laboratory and (3) reflections on the body donor or body donation. Notable sub‐themes included: (1.1) reflections on the body and soul, (2.1) reflections on the current medical curriculum and (3.1) the dichotomy of objectification and personification during student‐donor interaction. The presence of these themes and example quotes drawn from the reflections confirm that donor‐dissection not only teaches students anatomical knowledge but enables them to realize the importance of dissection to the medical curriculum, consider the gift that is body donation, and explore philosophical ideas of life and death. A thematic analysis of the reflections written by McGill University’s 2024 medical class, who were subject to a blended learning format during the COVID‐19 pandemic, is currently underway to determine the degree to which decreased laboratory exposure influenced the students’ reflections on their laboratory experience.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".