The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The human cadaver in the age of biomedical informatics
Abstract
Major national and international critiques of the medical curriculum in the 1980s noted the following significant flaws: (1) over‐reliance on learning by rote memory, (2) insufficient exercise in analysis and synthesis/conceptualization, and (3) failure to connect the basic and clinical aspects of training. It was argued that the invention of computers and related imaging techniques called to question the traditional instruction based on the faculty‐centered didactic lecture. In the ensuing reform, which adopted case‐based, small group, problem‐based learning, time allotted to anatomical instruction was severely truncated. Many programs replaced dissection with prosections and computer‐based learning. We argue that cadaver dissection is still necessary for (1) establishing the primacy of the patient, (2) apprehension of the multidimensional body, (3) touch‐mediated perception of the cadaver/patient, (4) anatomical variability, (5) learning the basic language of medicine, (6) competence in diagnostic imaging, (7) cadaver/patient‐centered computer‐assisted learning, (8) peer group learning, (9) training for the medical specialties. Cadaver‐based anatomical education is a prerequisite of optimal training for the use of biomedical informatics. When connected to dissection, medical informatics can expedite and enhance preparation for a patient‐based medical profession. Actual dissection is equally necessary for acquisition of scientific skills and for a communicative, moral, ethical, and humanistic approach to patient care. Anat Rec (New Anat) 269:20–32, 2002. © 2002 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Need for a New Medical Model: A Challenge for Biomedicine
Engel, G. L. (1977) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.847460 · Cited by 12,887
PEABODY, F. W. (1927) · JAMA: The Journal of the American Medical Association · doi:10.1001/jama.1927.02680380001001 · Cited by 603
Do virtual computer models hinder anatomy learning?
Garg, A., Norman, G. R., Spero, L., & Maheshwari, P. (1999) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1097/00001888-199910000-00049 · Cited by 183 · cited 1×
“Garg et al. (1999) have recently warned against the simplistic view that virtual modality is necessarily superior to the traditional one in anatomy instruction.”
Background
Cited by
Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future
McLachlan, J. C., & Patten, D. (2006) · Medical Education · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2929.2006.02401.x · Cited by 462
Human body preservation – old and new techniques
Brenner, E. (2014) · Journal of Anatomy · doi:10.1111/joa.12160 · Cited by 391
Iwanaga, J., Loukas, M., Dumont, A. S., & Tubbs, R. S. (2021) · Clinical Anatomy · doi:10.1002/ca.23655 · Cited by 328
Trelease, R. B. (2016) · Anatomical Sciences Education · doi:10.1002/ase.1620 · Cited by 266
Rizzolo, L. J. (2002) · The Anatomical Record · doi:10.1002/ar.10188 · Cited by 203
Metadata
- Authors
- Aziz, M. A., Mckenzie, J. C., Wilson, J. S., Cowie, R. J., Ayeni, S. A., & Dunn, B. K.
- Venue
- The Anatomical Record
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-02-15
- Volume
- 269
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 20-32
- ISSN
- 0003-276X (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0185
- OpenAlex
- W2069956337
- Cited by
- 484
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 15.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The human cadaver in the age of biomedical informatics. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ar.10046
- The paper
- Aziz, M. A., Mckenzie, J. C., Wilson, J. S., Cowie, R. J., Ayeni, S. A., & Dunn, B. K. (2002). The human cadaver in the age of biomedical informatics. The Anatomical Record. https://doi.org/10.1002/ar.10046
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.