Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42141853›Full record

ReviewAnatomical sciences education2026

Next generation open access visualization of neuroanatomy through 3D modeling and 3D printing.

James P Lister, Andrew Cale, Zach D Stetter, Jamie E Cronin, Steven R Summers, Jennifer M Stratford, Paul G McMenamin, Maureen E Stabio

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Anatomical sciences education, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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

8 authors.

James P ListerDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, David Geffen School of Medicine, UCLA, Los Angeles, California, USA.
Andrew CaleDepartment of Anatomy, Cell Biology, & Physiology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7158-3977
Zach D StetterModern Human Anatomy Program, Department of Cell & Developmental Biology, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Jamie E CroninModern Human Anatomy Program, Department of Cell & Developmental Biology, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Steven R SummersModern Human Anatomy Program, Department of Cell & Developmental Biology, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Jennifer M StratfordDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado, USA.
Paul G McMenaminMonash University, Clayton, Victoria, Australia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7141-1283
Maureen E StabioModern Human Anatomy Program, Department of Cell & Developmental Biology, University of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, Colorado, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2159-5301

Funding

Colorado Department of Higher Education
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Three-dimensional (3D) printing technology has transformed anatomy education by enabling students to visualize complex spatial relationships through interactive tactile learning. This technology is particularly valuable for neuroanatomy education, widely regarded as one of the most spatially challenging subjects in health professions curricula where form-function relationships are far less intuitive than other systems. Traditionally, neuroanatomy education has relied on intact donor brains for dissection and commercial neuroanatomical models. However, many institutions lack access to body donor programs that provide whole human brains, and vendor-supplied plastic models can be prohibitively expensive for some institutions. 3D printing addresses both challenges by enabling educators to create accurate, customized neuroanatomical models at a fraction of commercial costs. Despite this significant potential, implementation of 3D-printed models in neuroanatomy curricula remains limited. Anatomy educators face substantial barriers when adopting 3D printing technologies, including sourcing ethically appropriate digital data, selecting suitable printing equipment, choosing the best printing medium (e.g., plastic vs. resin), and effectively integrating these learning aids into existing curricula. To address these challenges, this discursive article provides comprehensive guidance on 3D printing for neuroanatomy education. We examine the pedagogical motivations and methodologies for creating 3D-printed brain models, and we evaluate 3D printing options across multiple domains: cost-effectiveness, required technical expertise, material properties, software accessibility, and model complexity. Through this analysis, we aim to enhance accessibility and knowledge of 3D printing technologies, ultimately supporting broader adoption of this powerful educational tool among anatomy educators.

Indexed as

Models, AnatomicNeuroanatomyPrinting, Three-DimensionalBrainCurriculumHumans3D‐printed models3D printingneuroanatomy

Identifiers

PMID42141853
PMCPMC13440727

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.