ArticleBMC medical education2026
The Roozbehi Integrated Spiral Anatomy Model (R-ISAM): a five-phase framework for fully integrated anatomical sciences education.
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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFragmentation between anatomical sciences and clinical practice remains a major challenge in medical education. Traditional discipline-based instruction often produces disconnected knowledge structures, limiting students' ability to apply foundational concepts in clinical reasoning. The Roozbehi Integrated Spiral Anatomy Model (R-ISAM) was developed to address this gap through a structured five-phase framework integrating gross anatomy, histology, and embryology with progressive clinical application.
methodsR-ISAM was implemented across musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal systems between 2020 and 2025. A mixed-methods evaluation was conducted using a validated 65-item questionnaire (Cronbach's α = 0.989) administered to 206 medical students across three educational stages. In addition, objective course scores (General Anatomy baseline, Musculoskeletal, Digestive, Neuroanatomy, and Neurophysiology) were collected from 350 to 353 students per course. Quantitative data were analysed using ANOVA and correlation analysis; qualitative data were analysed thematically.
resultsStudents reported high satisfaction across all domains (mean > 3.9/5). Clerkship students rated the model significantly higher than Basic Sciences and Physiopathology students (p < 0.001). Students reported perceived improvements in integrated assessment scores, clinical reasoning, and long-term retention. Objective course score analysis confirmed that baseline General Anatomy scores did not differ across stages (p = 0.172), supporting group comparability. Neuroanatomy scores (post-R-ISAM) showed no significant differences across stages (p = 0.312), with a similar non-significant pattern in the control course (Neurophysiology, p = 0.185). Qualitative findings highlighted enhanced clinical relevance, improved interdisciplinary integration, and increased confidence during early clinical encounters.
conclusionR-ISAM shows promise as a structured framework for integrating anatomical sciences with clinical practice. Students across all training stages reported positive perceptions, particularly regarding clinical relevance and interdisciplinary integration. Objective course score analysis confirmed baseline comparability. However, the current findings are based primarily on self-reported data and cross-sectional comparisons. Future research should incorporate objective outcome measures, longitudinal tracking, and multi-institutional validation to establish the model's effectiveness definitively.
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.