Show them what they can't see! An evaluation of the use of customized 3D printed models in head and neck anatomy.

Difficulty in visualizing anatomical structures has been identified as a challenge in anatomy learning and the emergence of three-dimensional printed models (3DPMs) offers a potential solution. This study evaluated the effectiveness of 3DPMs for learning the arterial supply of the head and neck region. One hundred eighty-four undergraduate medical students were randomly assigned to one of four learning modalities including wet specimen, digital model, 3DPM, and textbook image. Posttest scores indicated that all four modalities supported participants' knowledge acquisition, most significantly in the wet specimen group. While the participants rated 3DPMs lower for helping correct identification of structures than wet specimens, they praised 3DPMs for their ability to demonstrate topographical relationships between the arterial supply and adjacent structures. The data further suggested that the biggest limitation of the 3DPMs was their simplicity, thus making it more difficult for users to recognize the equivalent structures on the wet specimens. It was concluded that future designs of 3DPMs will need to consider the balance between the ease of visualization of anatomical structures and the degree of complexity required for successful transfer of learning. Overall, this study presented some conflicting evidence of the favorable outcomes of 3DPMs reported in other similar studies. While effective for anatomy learning as a standalone modality, educators must identify the position 3DPM models hold relative to other modalities in the continuum of undergraduate anatomy education in order to maximize their advantages for students.

"Where is the spleen? Where are the lungs?"-An investigation of the level of anatomical knowledge of the Hong Kong public.

This article investigates the level of anatomical knowledge of the Hong Kong public and uses the data to help suggest public engagement activities and health campaigns to raise health literacy in the general population. In the annual public engagement event organized by the University of Hong Kong, 250 attendees took a survey assessing basic anatomical knowledge by putting organs/structures in their correct positions. Description analysis, correlation analysis, independent sample t-test, and one-way ANOVA analysis were conducted by SPSS 27.0. Overall, a mean score of 6.5 out of 20 was achieved. Differences between various demographic parameters were analyzed, and the results showed that better performance on the survey was associated with younger age, higher educational levels, and having healthcare experience. There was also a statistically significant difference in correctly positioning the thyroid between males and females. Interestingly, some misconceptions were thought to arise from the bespoke use of the Chinese language in the survey. The data reflected room for improvement in the level of anatomical knowledge among the public, notably in the older age groups. This was attributed partially to a lack of public outreach initiatives and established anatomy-focused programs, which has restricted public exposure to anatomical knowledge and hindered the development of anatomical sciences in Hong Kong. In conclusion, the knowledge of the public on the human body needs to be improved and possible solutions to improve public awareness of health were raised.

Validation of a gene expression signature to measure immune quiescence in kidney transplant recipients in the CLIA setting.

Aim: Allograft rejection remains a major cause of graft failure in kidney transplantation. Here the authors report the validation of a non-invasive molecular diagnostic assay, AlloMap Kidney, using peripheral blood. Methods: The AlloMap Kidney test is a gene expression profile utilizing the RNA-seq platform to measure immune quiescence in kidney transplant patients. Results/Conclusions: Analytical validation showed robust performance characteristics with an accuracy correlation coefficient of 0.997 and a precision coefficient of variation of 0.049 across testing. Clinical validation from the prospective, multi-center studies of 235 samples (66 rejection and 169 quiescence specimens) demonstrated the sensitivity of 70% and specificity of 66% for allograft rejection, while the negative predictive value was 95% to discriminate rejection from quiescence at 10% prevalence of rejection.