1125 The Central Nervous System in the 18th Century Japanese Dissection Scrolls: Art of Observation and Dissection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: In the Edo Period in Japan, Confucianism and Buddhism prohibited human dissections until 1754, when the first authorized dissection occurred. Controlled foreign travel and exchange moderated with the late 18th-century resulting in the arrival of European anatomical volumes in Japan, sparking a paradigm shift in knowledge transfer. On March 4, 1771, the physicians, Gempaku Sugita, and colleagues attended a dissection after execution in Tokyo. Sugita and Maeno each brought along the same volume on human anatomy, the Ontleedkundige Tafelen, which was then translated as Kaitai Shinsho. A remarkable aspect of the creation of Kaitai Shinsho is debunking pre-existing notions on the Central Nervous System found in Chinese treatise. METHODS: This presentation will utilize a dissection scroll of Heijiro execution from 1783, the Kakkotsu shinkeizu anatomical Codex and a Kaitai Shinsho manuscript copy in McGill’s Osler Library to compare CNS depictions in these items with illustrations in the Kaitai Shinsho to help outline the role of the how the Kaitai Shinsho changed the view on central nervous system in Japan. RESULTS: Kaitai Shinsho has changed various views of how the central nervous system is depicted. in previous chinese treaties, the forebrain portion was deemed to be emoty, furthermore the medulla extended all the way to the end of spinal cord, which Kaitai shinsho disproved. Furthermore, although the Circle of Willis was already found, the dutch translation into Japanese occludes this structure. CONCLUSIONS: The book Kaitai Shinsho had revolutionized the Central Nervous system in Japan in the 1700s which have led to better understanding of the organs which then will be used in medical education of Neuorusgery in the next decades.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".