Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41460831›Full record

ReviewClinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.)2026

Reclaiming Anatomy as Method: From Morphological Reasoning to Clinical Relevance.

Katia Cortese, Marco Frascio

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical anatomy (New York, N.Y.), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Katia CorteseDIMES, Department of Experimental Medicine, Human Anatomy, MorphoLAB, University of Genoa, Genoa, Italy.
Marco FrascioIRCCS Ospedale Policlinico San Martino, Genoa, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In recent decades, molecular biology and omics technologies have profoundly reshaped biomedical research, with genomics, proteomics, and other high-throughput approaches dominating scientific agendas and funding priorities. Within this molecular paradigm, however, the anatomical sciences face an epistemic and institutional tension: morphology, historically grounded in the study of form, structure, and spatial relationships, is increasingly framed as merely descriptive or obsolete. This Viewpoint moves beyond the familiar narrative of a "decline of anatomy" to argue for its strategic reinvention as a core scientific method. Anatomy is not simply a body of knowledge but a way of seeing and reasoning that remains essential for understanding biological systems. Morphological thinking-linking structure to function in situ-provides integrative insights that cannot be derived from molecular data alone. Based on historical perspectives, epistemology, and recent advances in imaging and integrative methodologies, we show how anatomy continues to drive hypothesis generation, biomedical innovation, and clinical decision-making. Using the Italian academic system as a case study, we highlight the growing institutional disconnect between anatomical teaching and morphologically grounded research, exacerbated by metric-driven evaluation frameworks. Finally, we propose a roadmap for embedding morphology within emerging platforms such as spatial biology, high-resolution imaging, and AI-assisted analysis, reclaiming anatomy as a methodological compass for navigating biological complexity and clinical translation.

Indexed as

AnatomyClinical RelevanceHumansacademic identityanatomical educationcryo‐electron tomographydigital anatomymolecular reductionismmorphological reasoningspatial biology

Identifiers

PMID41460831
PMCPMC13584663

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.