Graphic medicine meets human anatomy: The potential role of comics in raising whole body donation awareness in Italy and beyond. A pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cadaver dissection has always played a fundamental role in medical education. However, especially in Italy, the topic of body donation has remained partially unknown for years. The current study analyses graphic medicine as a new possible communication tool, evaluating and reflecting, with second-year students enrolled in the International School of Medicine and Surgery at the University of Bologna, about its potentialities for body donation awareness-raising in both the scientific community and the general population. For the first time in an Italian University, two graphic medicine workshops were organized focusing on human anatomy and body donation. Seminars were positively evaluated by students using a four items Likert-scale question: mean 3.54 (± SD 0.73) for the Likert question about the experiences of the workshops; 3.88 (± 0.33) for the Likert question regarding the use of graphic medicine in body donation awareness campaigns among the general population; 3.59 (± 0.65) for the Likert question regarding the use of graphic medicine in body donation awareness campaigns among the scientific community. Furthermore, the open-ended questions included in the anonymous questionnaire were analyzed using the constructivist grounded qualitative analysis, whence various themes emerged. Finally, five graphic medicine projects about body donation were created by students, proving their interest in testing this method to promote body donation, focusing the attention on different communicative aspects. Considering the results of this pilot study, the co-creative collaborative use of graphic medicine could be evaluated as an additional strategy to increase body donation awareness-raising in Italy and beyond, especially in the non-experts' community.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".