MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Integrating Anatomical Education into a Residency Curriculum of a Surgical Specialty

2015· article· en· W433744900 on OpenAlexaff
Geoffrey W. Cundiff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe FASEB Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMedicineSpecialtyCornerstoneGross anatomyDissection (medical)Medical educationPelvisAnatomyPsychologyPathologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Anatomy is a cornerstone of modern medical education yet there is a continuing trend toward decreasing the time devoted to cadaveric dissection during medical school. Has the decrease in its use negatively impacted student's anatomical foundation? This is an especially relevant question for postgraduate education in surgical specialties, where an understanding of the pertinent anatomy is vital. Medical students entering residency training in obstetrics and gynecology often do not have an adequate understanding of pelvic anatomy. In fact, the recent growth in professional development courses employing cadaveric dissections is a testament to practicing gynaecologists recognition of inadequate teaching of pelvic anatomy. Designing a program to address this knowledge deficit is a worthwhile aim, especially if it includes elements that will maximize the utility of anatomical knowledge in surgical practice. Learners need a three‐dimensional understanding of pelvic anatomy that is transferable to pelvic surgery. Such a program should have clinical correlations, and develop production sets that are foundational to gynaecologic procedures. Lastly, repetition is essential to knowledge retention. A multimodality approach to teaching surgical anatomy is the most practical means to achieve these pedagogical goals. Clay modeling is a three‐dimensional technique that serves as an adjunct to lectures to refresh anatomy knowledge in residents entering an Obstetrics and Gynaecology program. The objective of the clay‐modeling session is to allow residents to conceptualize and build the anatomic structures of the pelvis in 3 dimensions using pre‐cut clay structures and a bony pelvis. While the lectures and supplementary teaching methods, are useful to build on the foundation provided by the clay‐modeling lab, the value of cadaveric dissection cannot be overstated. For Gynaecology, both vaginal and laparoscopic cadaver labs should be included, and can be achieved in sequence on the same cadaver. Repetition is the key to sustaining long‐term learning. Perhaps the best way to achieve this is by creating a clinical learning environment that highlights the importance of anatomical considerations and creates opportunities for cognitive reinforcement. Ultimately, the most important approach is to define it as a core competency required for advancement, and to develop discriminating means to test for it. As postgraduate accreditation bodies increasingly adopt competency‐based curricula, the need for valid methods of assessing anatomical competency becomes more pressing.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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