A comparison of three decalcification agents for assessments of cranial fracture histomorphology.

The extraction of mineral calcium from bone by decalcification is a critical step in the preparation of histological samples for light microscopy. This study assessed the time required for complete decalcification and the resultant histomorphological preservation of bone histomorphology by three decalcification agents: 7% hydrochloric acid (HCl), 5% nitric acid, and 10% ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (EDTA). The goal of this study was to identify which decalcification agent provides the optimal combination of expedient processing and quality histological outcomes of cranial fracture samples. HCl provided the most rapid decalcification ( X ¯  = 3.57 days), nitric acid followed closely ( X ¯  = 10.35 days), while EDTA took significantly longer on average ( X ¯  = 78.97 days) but encompassed a broader range of times. Decalcification agent, sample thickness, sample width, and decedent age are significant predictors of decalcification time. Sample visualization quality, measured for tissues, cells, and nuclei on a five-point Likert scale, was highest for samples decalcified in 10% EDTA, second highest using 5% nitric acid, and lowest for 7% HCl. The quality difference between EDTA and nitric acid was not highly significant for any of the three features. For basic assessments of bone histomorphology, the study results indicate 5% nitric acid is suitable for the decalcification of adult specimens and samples thicker than 3 mm. EDTA is a suitable agent for thin samples of the cranial vault (<3 mm) from infants and young children less than three years old, decalcifying samples in a timeframe comparable to nitric acid while providing the best quality and clarity of samples.

Lessons learned while creating an effective emergency remote learning environment for students during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic is forcing many institutions to consider remote, virtual instruction for the safety of employees and students. Based upon the authors' experiences in transforming preclerkship medical science courses to virtual platforms, this paper shares tips for faculty rapidly establishing remote medical science instruction. With planning and support, faculty can create engaging, high-quality educational experiences for learners.

A comparison of the effectiveness of dissection and prosection on short-term anatomic knowledge retention in a reciprocal peer-teaching program.

Few discussions regarding instructional methods incite as much passion as the debate over dissection versus prosection. Despite numerous analyses, few studies have isolated the impact of dissection versus prosection from the numerous variables that are involved in anatomy education. This study used a retrospective design to assess the effect of peer teaching with dissection or prosection on anatomical knowledge retention of the peer teachers. Exam scores were analyzed from three cohorts of students (N = 184) who were enrolled in a Musculoskeletal System course in an allopathic medical school between academic years 2014-2017. Students in the first 2 yr learned anatomy of an assigned region through traditional dissection, whereas students in the third year learned anatomy of the same regions on prosected specimens. The effect of these instructional methods on anatomical knowledge retention was measured by student performance on a teaching-readiness quiz, written exam, and practical examination. One advantage of this study is the stability of variables between cohorts. Student groups peer taught the same objectives; course sequencing and content remained consistent between years; students spent the same amount of time learning their material, regardless of learning modality (dissection or prosection); and students were tested in the same manner. Comparisons of student performance data suggest that anatomy knowledge was equivalent, regardless of the instructional method (dissection or prosected cadavers) but is strongly associated with prior anatomy experience. Findings from this study support previous studies that conclude that there are no disparities in the effectiveness of learning anatomy via dissection or prosection.