MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7117469706 · doi:10.2196/85967

Use of 3D-Printed Models and Augmented Reality in Medical Student Education of Congenital Heart Disease: Randomized Controlled Trial

2025· article· en· W7117469706 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tyler L. Langenfeld, Gabriel Bahrami, Yea-Lyn Pak, Susanne Wish-Baratz, Yuxi Zhu, Arpit Agarwal

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Medical Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicAnatomy and Medical Technology
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSchool of Medicine, Case Western Reserve UniversityCase Western Reserve University
KeywordsRandomized controlled trialAugmented realityMEDLINEHeart disease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Three-dimensional modalities are increasingly being used as adjuncts for medical trainees learning about complex anatomical concepts, such as congenital heart disease. Objective: This study aimed to evaluate the use of 2 such modalities, 3D-printed models, and augmented reality (AR), in improving medical students' understanding and knowledge retention of congenital heart disease when compared to traditional teaching methods. Methods: A prospective cohort pilot study was performed with 26 first-year medical students. Students were randomly assigned to receive a 30-minute teaching session using traditional slide-based lecture, 3D-printed model, or AR. Participants completed a 16-question pretest consisting of 4 basic general cardiology questions and 6 questions each regarding the anatomy and physiology of tetralogy of Fallot and hypoplastic left heart syndrome. Participants completed a posttest immediately following the teaching session, as well as a delayed posttest 3 weeks later. Results: When comparing overall and subsection posttest scores, the AR group obtained perfect immediate posttest scores at a significantly increased rate compared to the lecture and 3D model groups (6/9, 67% vs 1/8, 13% and 1/9, 11%, respectively; large effect size Cramér V=0.57; P=.02). Participants in the lecture group reported difficulty understanding cardiac anatomy and physiology using only 2D diagrams, whereas those in the 3D-printed model and AR groups almost unanimously reported improved visualization of complex cardiac defects, which enhanced their understanding. Conclusions: Due to the visuospatial benefits of 3D-printed models and AR, there is potential for use in medical education to improve students' knowledge of complex anatomical and physiological concepts. Students who received teaching using 3D-printed models or AR overwhelmingly reported improved 3D visualization of congenital cardiac defects compared to those who were taught via lecture. Additionally, AR and 3D-printed models offer practical opportunities for implementation into medical education curricula as both adjunct and stand-alone teaching modalities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.260
Threshold uncertainty score0.610

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.336 · 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 designRandomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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