Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 991

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 65 of the 65 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization

Open access
Sugand, Kapil, Abrahams, Peter, Khurana, Ashish·2010·Anatomical Sciences Education

Abstract

Anatomy has historically been a cornerstone in medical education regardless of nation or specialty. Until recently, dissection and didactic lectures were its sole pedagogy. Teaching methodology has been revolutionized with more reliance on models, imaging, simulation, and the Internet to further consolidate and enhance the learning experience. Moreover, modern medical curricula are giving less importance to anatomy education and to the acknowledged value of dissection. Universities have even abandoned dissection completely in favor of user‐friendly multimedia, alternative teaching approaches, and newly defined priorities in clinical practice. Anatomy curriculum is undergoing international reformation but the current framework lacks uniformity among institutions. Optimal learning content can be categorized into the following modalities: (1) dissection/prosection, (2) interactive multimedia, (3) procedural anatomy, (4) surface and clinical anatomy, and (5) imaging. The importance of multimodal teaching, with examples suggested in this article, has been widely recognized and assessed. Nevertheless, there are still ongoing limitations in anatomy teaching. Substantial problems consist of diminished allotted dissection time and the number of qualified anatomy instructors, which will eventually deteriorate the quality of education. Alternative resources and strategies are discussed in an attempt to tackle these genuine concerns. The challenges are to reinstate more effective teaching and learning tools while maintaining the beneficial values of orthodox dissection. The UK has a reputable medical education but its quality could be improved by observing international frameworks. The heavy penalty of not concentrating on sufficient anatomy education will inevitably lead to incompetent anatomists and healthcare professionals, leaving patients to face dire repercussions. Anat Sci Educ 3: 83–93, 2010. © 2010 American Association of Anatomists.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/ase.139

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

Show all 65 references

Cited by

See all 991

Metadata

Authors
Sugand, K., Abrahams, P., & Khurana, A.
Venue
Anatomical Sciences Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2010-03
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
83-93
ISSN
  • 1935-9772 (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-9780
OpenAlex
W1964809186
Cited by
991
References
65
FWCI
29.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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 anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1002/ase.139
The paper
Sugand, K., Abrahams, P., & Khurana, A. (2010). The anatomy of anatomy: A review for its modernization. Anatomical Sciences Education. https://doi.org/10.1002/ase.139

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.