Back

Medical Students Perception of Anatomage: A 3D Interactive (Virtual) Anatomy Dissection Table

Memudu, A. E.; Idaguko, C. A.; Gabriel, O. M.; Oviosun, A.; Vidona, B. W.; Odetola, A. A.; Ehehba, S. E.; Ebeye, A. O.; Nwaopara, A. O.; Dare, W. N.; Akinyinka, O. O.

2022-04-27 medical education
10.1101/2022.04.25.22274178 medRxiv
Show abstract

IntroductionThe rising number of Medical Schools and the increasing demand for cadavers, amid its scarcity, has prompted the search for alternatives in Anatomy Education. This study assessed students thought of the use of Anatomage as an Anatomy teaching and learning tool in medical school. MethodsA five-point scale questionnaire with a free hand comment section was completed by 50 medical students exposed to the use of Anatomage alongside the traditional cadaveric dissection for 2 academic sessions. ResultsOur results findings showed that there were preference pattern variations in the use of the Anatomage for various fields of anatomy such as Gross Anatomy (48%), Histology (46%), and Neuroanatomy (2%) respectively. Furthermore, 66% opined that Anatomage and Cadaveric dissection should be complementary in teaching and learning anatomy. However, been satisfied with Anatomage was 76% (52% completely and 24% generally agreed respectively), while Anatomage increasing their interest in Anatomy was 66% (40% completely agreed and 26% generally agreed) and 74% (40% completely agreed and 34% generally agreed) of learning outcomes been achieved using Anatomage. Also, 68% stated that the micrographs were well displayed for histology teaching. Overall, 60% of the students agreed that Anatomage should be encouraged in teaching and learning Anatomy, along with other teaching aids. DiscussionAnatomage increased students interest in Anatomy as its 3D-image display enabled better visualization of relevant anatomical structures. Anatomage has the potential to be a beneficial supplement to standard learning methods in the acquisition of 3D anatomy information.

Matching journals

The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.