ArticleAnatomical science international2026
Does gender influence learning, perceptions and retention in regional anatomy dissection courses?
Article in Anatomical science international, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Medical educators should understand the differences within the medical student population, including gender. Research on gender effects on learning and skill acquisition has yielded contradictory results, particularly in anatomy learning among undergraduate medical students. While various dissection course settings have been evaluated, gender-specific differences have largely been overlooked. This study examined gender differences in several aspects of anatomy education. First, the ability of undergraduate medical students to identify anatomical structures was assessed to determine gender differences in learning gains. Second, learning outcomes were compared between a 3-month and a 1-month regional anatomy course, with attention to gender. Third, knowledge retention was evaluated at 6- and 12-month follow-ups. Finally, student perceptions of different embalming methods for anatomy learning were assessed with a focus on gender. Minor differences were observed between genders across different regions in learning gains. Scores from the 3-month course were higher than those from the 1-month course, regardless of gender, particularly for the neck, thorax, and abdomen. A significant knowledge gain was noted in abdominal anatomy at the 6- and 12-month follow-up: scores improved by 56% in females and by 68% in males. The comparison of Thiel- versus ethanol-based embalming revealed gender differences regarding tissue pliability and the utility of tissues for achieving learning objectives. In conclusion, subtle differences appear to exist between female and male students in terms of perceptions and learning outcomes in gross anatomy dissection courses. These findings will be useful in developing new curricula for undergraduate medical students, taking into account gender differences in the context of regional anatomy dissection courses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.