ArticleCureus2026
3D-Printed Models as Catalysts for Neuroanatomy Learning: An Immersive Educational Experience for Medical Students.
Article in Cureus, 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
Introduction Neuroanatomy presents unique challenges due to the three-dimensional (3D) complexity of the nervous system. This study evaluates the impact of 3D-printed brainstem models on neuroanatomy teaching to medical students. Methods A descriptive, cross-sectional, non-randomized, between-group study was conducted to compare students' perceptions of 3D-printed anatomical models versus traditional schematic diagrams. Participants were recruited through non-probability convenience sampling and allocated to a 3D-model group (n = 38) or a traditional-diagram group (n = 23). A Likert-type questionnaire assessed perceived motivation, clarity, understanding, usefulness, and satisfaction. Descriptive statistics and the Mann-Whitney U test were used for between-group comparisons. Results Sixty-one responses were analyzed. Compared with traditional schematic diagrams, 3D-printed models received significantly higher ratings for conceptual clarity, overall satisfaction, and preference for future use (p < 0.05). In contrast, schematic diagrams received higher ratings for motivation, a finding that may reflect unmeasured factors such as prior familiarity with conventional learning resources. Conclusions The use of 3D printing improves the neuroanatomical learning experience for medical students, as it is perceived as an innovative, clear, and complementary resource. Its implementation can transform traditional neuroscience teaching.
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.