Emotional feelings experienced by medical students at cadaver dissections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Human cadaver dissection is central in medical teaching/learning in initial years of medical undergraduates and there are varieties of mixed feelings/emotional reactions experienced when exposed to human cadavers. Adverse physical and psychological effects to human dissection have been reported particularly with European, American and Canadian students, 25.2% experiencing depression and nightmares. Objective : To assess the emotional feelings experienced by medical students at cadaver dissection Methods: Two hundred and eighty-five(285) students of FMS, USJP of 2006/2007 and 2009/2010 A/L intake completed a simple self administered questionnaire regarding emotional feelings experienced at cadaver dissections. Results : Majority 63.5% (181/285)] of students were apprehensive in handling/dissecting the cadaver when they entered the dissecting hall for the first time. 52.3% (149/285) considered the cadaveric dissections stimulating, 64.6%(184/285) challenging, 50.5%(144/285) enjoyable and 57.8%(165/285) as an informative environment. Female medical students were 3.3 times more worried than peer male students when entering the dissecting room. 54.7 %(156/285) students felt that an interaction with anatomy staff explaining/ mentally preparing for dissections prior to entering the dissecting hall would lessen the emotional impact and reduce anxiety. Percentage 53.3 (152/285) considered cadaver dissection based teaching as an important educational and emotional skill training method, and 83.5%(238/285) considered it to be helpful in future surgical skills. Conclusions : Although the majority of medical students are initially apprehensive towards dissections they realize the value of dissections as an educational, emotional and surgical skills training method. The initial adverse emotional reactions to cadaver dissections are relatively less than the documented European, American and Canadian figures.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".