ArticleClinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.)2025
Pathology discovered in the "first patient" can be the silent teacher of self-directed learning.
Article in Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Pathology discovered in the "first patient" can be the silent teacher of self-directed learning.Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.) · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Pathology found during cadaveric dissection has been used to model integrative teaching methods for medical students at several institutions. Recent evidence has shown that pathology found during dissection can be used in the design of self-directed learning (SDL) activities with standards that are difficult to meet. This study presents a novel method for providing formative feedback, one of the most challenging aspects for LCME accreditation of SDL activities. Three practitioners (two board certified pathologists and one board certified family physician) reviewed and rated pathological findings during routine dissection by first year medical students in the gross anatomy laboratory in New Orleans, Louisiana. The students also rated the findings, and a comparative score was given that provided quick, individualized formative feedback with no additional faculty time burden. The inter-rater reliability (IRR) among the clinical expert panel (n = 3) was adequate (IRR = 0.85). The students' percentage agreement with the expert panel was just under 57%. There was no significant correlation between the score on the Gift formative feedback instrument (FFI) and the students' performances in their gross anatomy course (p > 0.05). This study describes a FFI that allows for the variety of clinical presentations in cadavers dissected in the gross anatomy laboratory, while protecting faculty time that would otherwise be used for scoring individuals in large cohorts of medical students. This instrument can be used to integrate pathology and gross anatomy and provide a practical way of implementing self-directed learning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.