ArticleBMC medical education2026
An interactive anatomy tool to boost clinical reasoning and knowledge retention for preclinical medical students: a preliminary evaluation.
Article in BMC medical education, 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionAnatomy teaching in preclinical medical education has become increasingly compressed, making it more difficult for students to integrate foundational anatomical knowledge with clinical reasoning. Upper limb nerve lesions are particularly challenging to learn because they require spatial understanding and application of structure-function relationships, yet students often struggle to translate two-dimensional instructional materials into clinical reasoning. This study presents a preliminary evaluation of a medical student-developed, three-dimensional (3D) interactive simulation designed to model upper limb nerve lesions and their associated motor, sensory, and reflex deficits.
methodsFirst-year medical students who had completed the standard anatomy curriculum participated in a single-session pilot study with room-level random allocation comparing a traditional PowerPoint-based review (2D Review Group) with an interactive simulation (3D Simulation Group). Both groups completed identical worksheets and a five-item multiple-choice pre- and post-test assessing clinical application of anatomy knowledge. Post-session surveys evaluated perceived clarity, clinical relevance, and educational value. Knowledge gains were compared using Mann-Whitney U tests with effect size calculations, and open-ended survey responses were analyzed using Reflexive Thematic Analysis (RTA) following Braun and Clarke.
resultsA total of 35 students participated, with 33 included in the knowledge gain analysis. Both instructional groups showed improvement on the post-test. Although differences in change scores were not statistically significant (U = 165.00, p = .274), the 3D Simulation Group showed a larger median gain and reached similar post-test scores to the 2D Review Group despite lower baseline performance. Survey responses did not differ significantly between groups. Qualitative feedback suggested differing learner priorities across instructional modalities, with participants in the 3D Simulation Group emphasizing visual-spatial support and interactivity, and participants in the 2D Review Group emphasizing structured review and practice questions. DISCUSSION: Given the single-session design, these findings should be interpreted as exploratory. However, they suggest that interactive 3D simulation may support conceptual understanding and application of anatomical knowledge, particularly for learners with lower baseline knowledge.
conclusionThis study supports the feasibility of a student-led, AI-assisted approach to developing adaptable educational tools within a medical curriculum. Although quantitative differences were modest, qualitative feedback suggests that learners valued the tool's support for clinical reasoning and spatial understanding. Further longitudinal and multi-session research is needed to evaluate retention, scalability, and educational impact.
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.