MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7110231664 · doi:10.2196/85028

Interactive, Image-Based Modules as a Complement to Prosection-Based Anatomy Laboratories: Multicohort Evaluation

2025· article· en· W7110231664 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplement (music)Component (thermodynamics)Complement system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: As medical and allied health curricula adapt to increasing time constraints, ethical considerations, and resource limitations, digital innovations are becoming vital supplements to donor-based anatomy instruction. While prior studies have examined the effectiveness of prosection versus dissection and the role of digital tools in anatomy learning, few resources align interactive digital modules directly with hands-on prosection experiences. OBJECTIVE: This project addresses that gap by introducing an integrated, curriculum-aligned platform for self-guided cadaveric learning. METHODS: We created Anatomy Interactives, a web-based laboratory manual structured to complement prosection laboratories for MD, DPT, and PA students. Modules were developed using iSpring Suite (iSpring Solutions Incorporated) and included interactive labeled images, donor photographs, and quiz-style self-assessments. Learners engaged with modules before, during, or after laboratory sessions. PA/DPT and MD students completed postcourse surveys evaluating module use and perceived impact. MD student examination scores from a 2023 cohort (no module access) were compared to a 2024 cohort (with access) to evaluate effectiveness. RESULTS: A total of 147 students completed the survey (31 PA/DPT and 116 MD). The majority reported using modules for 1-2 hours per week and found them helpful for both written and laboratory examinations. MD students in the 2024 cohort performed better on all 3 examinations compared to the 2023 cohort, with 2 examination median differences reaching statistical significance (Mann-Whitney U, P<.001). Qualitative feedback highlighted accessibility, content reinforcement, and user engagement as key benefits. CONCLUSIONS: Interactive modules integrated with prosection laboratories enhanced learner engagement and performance. This hybrid digital-donor model shows promise for scalable, learner-centered gross anatomy education.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.079

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.351 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Medical EducationSame topicAnatomy and Medical TechnologyFrench-language works237,207