Comfort levels and experiences of middle school and high school age children in anatomical donor‐based anatomy outreach sessions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many health professions schools host anatomy outreach sessions for high school students that utilize anatomical donors. However, teaching with anatomical donors for younger learners is uncommon. This study aimed to assess the comfort levels and experiences of students who attended the anatomy sessions as part of summer programs at Rutgers New Jersey Medical School. Younger learners (students entering grades 7-10; n = 25) and older learners (students entering grades 11-12; n = 33) completed pre- and post-session surveys about their comfort using a 5-point Likert scale. Before the sessions, most students felt comfortable or very comfortable learning from isolated organs (μ = 2.7, SD = 1.3) or full-body donors (μ = 2.4, SD = 1.4), even though most have never been to an anatomical donor lab before. After the sessions, the comfort level significantly increased for both isolated organs (μ = 3.3, SD = 1.1; p = 0.02) and full-body donors (μ = 3.1, SD = 1.2; p = 0.004). For isolated organs, there was no significant difference in the comfort level between younger and older learners before (p = 0.50) or after (p = 0.56) the sessions. Similarly, for full-body donors, there was no significant difference in the comfort level between younger and older learners before (p = 0.95) or after (p = 0.75) the sessions. Most students expressed that the experience was unique and positive. In conclusion, most students entering grades 7-12 felt comfortable learning from isolated organs and full-body anatomical donors prior to the sessions and felt more comfortable after the sessions. With this, anatomy outreach programs that utilize anatomical donors could be expanded to include younger learners to provide more dynamic teaching experiences for students of various ages.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".