Anatomy's missing faces: An assessment of representation gaps in atlas and textbook imagery.

Previous research suggests that underrepresentation in medical curricula perpetuates inequities in healthcare. This study aimed to quantify the prevalence of human phenotypic diversity (e.g., skin tone, sex, body size, and age) across 11 commonly used anatomy atlases and textbooks in pre-clerkship medical education, published from 2015 to 2020. A systematic visual content analysis was conducted on 5001 images in which at least one phenotypic attribute was quantifiable. Anatomy images most prevalently portrayed light skin tones, males, persons with intermediate body sizes, and young to middle-aged adults. Of the 3883 images in which there was a codable skin tone, 81.2% (n = 3154) depicted light, 14.3% (n = 554) depicted intermediate, and 4.5% (n = 175) depicted dark skin tones. Of the 2384 images that could be categorized into a sex binary, 38.4% (n = 915) depicted females and 61.6% (n = 1469) depicted males. A male bias persisted across all whole-body and regional-body images, including those showing sex organs or those showing characteristics commonly associated with a specific sex (e.g. for males, facial hair and/or muscle hypertrophy). Within sex-specific contexts, darker skin was underrepresented, but male depictions displayed greater overall skin tone variation. Although most images could not be assigned to a body size or age category, when codable, these images overwhelmingly depicted adults (85.0%; 482 of 567) with smaller (34.7%; 93 of 268) or intermediate (64.6%; 173 of 268) body sizes. Ultimately, these outcomes provide reference metrics for monitoring ongoing and future efforts to address representation inequalities portrayed in anatomical imagery.

Faith and facts: Exploring the intersection of religion and science among anatomy educators.

The intersection of religion and science often elicits polarizing views among scientists, though approximately half of American scientists identify as religious. Mounting evidence also supports the role of spirituality in comprehensive patient care. The purpose of this study was to explore the religiosity of faculty who teach in the anatomical sciences at U.S. colleges and universities. Surveys were administered to anatomists through two professional societies. Two-thirds (64.9%, 74/114) of respondents identified as religious, 26.3% (30/114) as atheist, and 8.8% (10/114) as agnostic. Most respondents (64.9%, 74/114) disagreed with the statement, "There is no place for religion and science to intersect." Approximately one in three respondents expressed concern that sharing/disclosing their religious beliefs would negatively affect the perceptions of colleagues (32.5%, 37/114) and students (28.9%, 33/114) toward them. Faculty at faith-based institutions were more open to disclosing their beliefs (p = 0.045), and highly religious individuals were more concerned (p = 0.001). Fewer than one-fifth of respondents 17.5% (20/114) personally experienced mistreatment or discrimination within academic settings due to their religious beliefs. Most respondents held politically liberal-leaning views (71.0%, 76/107). Highly religious individuals were more likely to be politically conservative (p < 0.001). Overall, this study demonstrates that the number of anatomists who identify as religious may be higher than that of other biological disciplines and that mistreatment due to religious views remains a challenge for some in the profession. Continued dialogue regarding the role of religion in professional identity expression may be an important step in mitigating religion-focused mistreatment and discrimination in academic settings.

Employment benefits across U.S. allopathic medical schools: National norms and relationships with institutional wealth.

This study summarizes employment benefits from across 155 U.S. allopathic medical schools, investigates differences in employment benefits according to institutional characteristics, and explores possible connections between employment benefits and institutional wealth. Employment benefits data were extracted from institutions' websites across four categories: time-off, time-away, retirement contributions, and Employee Assistance Programs (EAPs)/family benefits. This dataset was mixed with other publicly available datasets sourced through the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), the American Council on Education (ACE), and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) to conduct additional analyses. Nationally, medical schools offered an average of 31 vacation/sick days and 12 paid holidays. Schools typically offered 4 out of 8 time-away benefits. Employers' retirement contributions ranged from 3.0% to 15.5%, with a mean contribution of 8.5%. A total of 43.2% (67 of 155) of medical schools offered a pension. Collectively, private medical schools offered fewer time-away benefits and more EAP/family benefits compared to public schools. Universities with larger endowments per student were associated with a higher number of EAP/family benefits offerings (r = 0.543, p < 0.001). Institutional wealth did not influence other benefits offerings. The quantity/quality of most employment benefits offered at allopathic medical schools were wide-ranging, tended not to vary by region or school control, and were not a function of institutional wealth.

Survey response rates in health sciences education research: A 10-year meta-analysis.

Growth in the online survey market may be increasing response burden and possibly jeopardizing higher response rates. This meta-analysis evaluated survey trends over one decade (2011-2020) to determine: (1) changes in survey publication rates over time, (2) changes in response rates over time, (3) typical response rates within health sciences education research, (4) the factors influencing survey completion levels, and (5) common gaps in survey methods and outcomes reporting. Study I estimated survey publication trends between 2011 and 2020 using articles published in the top three health sciences education research journals. Study II searched the anatomical sciences education literature across six databases and extracted study/survey features and survey response rates. Time plots and a proportional meta-analysis were performed. Per 2926 research articles, the annual estimated proportion of studies with survey methodologies has remained constant, with no linear trend (p > 0.050) over time (Study I). Study II reported a pooled absolute response rate of 67% (95% CI = 63.9-69.0) across 360 studies (k), totaling 115,526 distributed surveys. Despite response rate oscillations over time, no significant linear trend (p = 0.995) was detected. Neither survey length, incentives, sponsorship, nor population type affected absolute response rates (p ≥ 0.070). Only 35% (120 of 339) of studies utilizing a Likert scale reported evidence of survey validity. Survey response rates and the prevalence of studies with survey methodologies have remained stable with no linear trends over time. We recommend researchers strive for a typical absolute response rate of 67% or higher and clearly document evidence of survey validity for empirical studies.

Pulling back the curtain: Exploring norms and practices among a sample of anatomy-related departments in U.S. medical schools.

Anatomy-related departments have access to comparative research productivity data (e.g., Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research), yet no datasets exist for comparing departments' general practices pertinent to education-focused faculty. Practice trends in anatomy-related departments across U.S. medical schools were explored by surveying departmental leaders. The survey inquired about: (i) faculty time allocations, (ii) anatomy teaching services, (iii) faculty labor distribution models, and (iv) faculty compensation practices. A nationally representative sample of 35 departments (of 194) responded to the survey. On average, anatomy educators are allotted 24% (median = 15%) protected time for research, irrespective of funding, 62% for teaching and course administration (median = 68%), 12% for service, and 2% for administration. Forty-four percent (15 of 34) of departments taught at least five different student populations, often across multiple colleges. Many departments (65%; 11 of 17) applied formulaic methods for determining faculty workloads, often as a function of course credits or contact hours. Average base salaries for assistant and associate professors reported by this survey were consistent (p ≥ 0.056) with national means (i.e., Association of American Medical Colleges Annual Faculty Salary Report). Merit-based increases and bonuses averaged 5% and 10% of faculty's salaries, respectively, when awarded. Cost-of-living increases averaged 3%. Overall, departments' workload and compensation practices vary widely, likely a consequence of different institutional cultures, locations, needs, and financial priorities. This sample dataset allows anatomy-related departments to compare and reflect upon their practices and competitiveness in recruiting and retaining faculty.

Could the altmetrics wave bring a flood of confusion for anatomists?

Altmetrics are non-traditional metrics that can capture downloads, social media shares, and other modern measures of research impact and reach. Despite most of the altmetrics literature focusing on evaluating the relationship between research outputs and academic impact/influence, the perceived and actual value of altmetrics among academicians remains nebulous and inconsistent. This work proposes that ambiguities surrounding the value and use of altmetrics may be explained by a multiplicity of altmetrics definitions communicated by journal publishers. A root cause analysis was initiated to compare altmetrics definitions between anatomy and medical education journal publishers' websites and to determine the comparability of the measurement and platform sources used for computing altmetrics values. A scoping content analysis of data from across eight publishers' websites revealed wide variability in definitions and heterogeneity among altmetrics measurement sources. The incongruencies among publishers' altmetrics definitions and their value demonstrate that publishers may be one of the root cause of ambiguity perpetuating confusion around the value and use of altmetrics. This review highlights the need to more deeply explore the root causes of altmetrics ambiguities within academia and makes a compelling argument for establishing a ubiquitous altmetrics definition that is concise, clear, and specific.

Identifying validity evidence for uncertainty tolerance scales: A systematic review.

PURPOSE: Uncertainty tolerance (UT) is increasingly valued as a medical graduate attribute and broadly measured among medical student populations. However, the validity evidence underpinning UT scale implementation has not been summarised across studies. The present work evaluates UT scale validity evidence to better inform when, why and how UT scales ought to be used and to identify remaining validity evidence gaps. METHODS: A literature search for psychometric studies of UT scales was completed in 2022. Records were included if they implemented one of the four most cited UT scales (i.e. Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty scale 1990 [PRU1990] or 1995 [PRU1995], Tolerance for Ambiguity [TFA] scale or Tolerance of Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors scale [TAMSAD]) in a population of physicians and/or medial students and presented validity evidence according to the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing framework. Included studies were rated and analysed according to evidence for test content, response processes, internal structure, relations to other variables and consequences of testing. RESULTS: Among the investigated scales, 'relations to other variables' and 'internal structure' were the most commonly reported forms of validity evidence. No evidence of 'response processes' or 'consequences of testing' was identified. Overall, the PRU1990 and PRU1995 demonstrated the strongest validity evidence, although evidence primarily related to physician populations. CONCLUSIONS: None of the studied scales demonstrated evidence for all five sources of validity. Future research would benefit from assessing validity evidence for 'response processes' and 'consequences of testing' among physicians and medical students at different training/career stages to better understand UT construct conceptualisation in these populations. Until further and stronger validity evidence for UT scales is established, we caution against implementing UT scales outside of research settings (e.g. for higher stakes decision making).

Faculty retirements will likely exacerbate the anatomy educator shortage.

Medical education has reported a shortage of anatomy educators since the 1960s. While the faculty pipeline has recently been explored, insights into retirement intentions, a key driver of faculty turnover, have yet to be investigated. With the mean age of anatomists rising, knowledge of retirement intentions among current educators is essential to understanding the anatomy educator shortage. This study explored the retirement intentions of current anatomy educators and their likely effects on the workforce. Surveys were distributed to department heads and the American Association for Anatomy (AAA) membership to inquire about job postings from 2018-2020 and retirement intentions, respectively. Department heads sought to fill open positions due to faculty retirements (36%, 15 of 42), faculty relocations/sabbaticals/new responsibilities (31%), and brand new positions (24%). The retirement intentions survey revealed that 61% (23 of 38) of faculty '55 and older' intend to retire within five years. Based on the extrapolation of AAA membership data, estimates suggest that almost twice as many anatomy faculty could retire per year (n = 40) over the next five years compared to the estimated number of annual PhD graduates (n = 22) likely to enter the workforce. Factors driving retirement intentions were overwhelmingly age and finances, followed by job satisfaction and family. The creation of new anatomy educator positions to address increased student enrollments and new health sciences programs is likely to place even greater strain on workforce demands.

Reliability of Uncertainty Tolerance Scales Implemented Among Physicians and Medical Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: Uncertainty tolerance (UT) is a construct describing individuals' perceptions of, and responses to, uncertainty across their cognition, emotion, and behavior. Various UT scales have been designed for physician and medical student populations. However, links between UT and other variables (e.g., training stages) are inconsistent, raising concerns about scale reliability and validity. As reliability is a precondition for validity, a necessary first step in assessing UT scales' efficacy is evaluating their reliability. Accordingly, the authors conducted a meta-analysis of the reliability of UT scales designed for, and implemented among, physician and medical student populations. METHOD: In 2020, the authors searched 4 electronic databases alongside a citation search of previously identified UT scales. They included English-language, peer-reviewed studies that implemented UT scales in physician and/or medical student populations and reported reliability evidence. A meta-analysis of studies' Cronbach's alphas evaluated aggregated internal consistency across studies; subgroup analyses evaluated UT scales by named scale, population, and item characteristics. RESULTS: Among 4,124 records screened, 35 studies met the inclusion criteria, reporting 75 Cronbach's alphas. Four UT scales appeared in at least 3 included studies: Physicians' Reactions to Uncertainty scale 1990 (PRU1990) and 1995 (PRU1995) versions, Tolerance for Ambiguity scale (TFA), and Tolerance of Ambiguity in Medical Students and Doctors scale (TAMSAD). The scores from these scales ranged in reliability from very good (PRU1990: 0.832, PRU1995: 0.818) to respectable (TFA: 0.761, TAMSAD: 0.711). Aggregated internal consistency was significantly higher ( P < .001) among physicians (0.797) than medical students (0.711). CONCLUSIONS: UT scales generally demonstrated respectable internal consistency when administered among physicians and medical students, yet the reliability among medical students was significantly lower. The authors caution against using UT scores for decision-making purposes (e.g., applicant selection, program evaluation), especially among medical student populations. Future research should explore the reasons underlying these observed population differences.

Correlating Spatial Ability With Anatomy Assessment Performance: A Meta-Analysis.

Interest in spatial ability has grown over the past few decades following the emergence of correlational evidence associating spatial aptitude with educational performance in the fields of science, technology, engineering, and mathematics. The research field at large and the anatomy education literature on this topic are mixed. In an attempt to generate consensus, a meta-analysis was performed to objectively summarize the effects of spatial ability on anatomy assessment performance across multiple studies and populations. Relevant studies published within the past 50 years (1969-2019) were retrieved from eight databases. Study eligibility screening was followed by a full-text review and data extraction. Use of the Mental Rotations Test (MRT) was required for study inclusion. Out of 2,450 screened records, 15 studies were meta-analyzed. Seventy-three percent of studies (11 of 15) were from the United States and Canada, and the majority (9 of 15) studied professional students. Across 15 studies and 1,245 participants, spatial ability was weakly associated with anatomy performance (rpooled  = 0.240; CI at 95% = 0.09, 0.38; P = 0.002). Performance on spatial and relationship-based assessments (i.e., practical assessments and drawing tasks) was correlated with spatial ability, while performance on assessments utilizing non-spatial multiple-choice items was not correlated with spatial ability. A significant sex difference was also observed, wherein males outperformed females on spatial ability tasks. Given the role of spatial reasoning in learning anatomy, educators are encouraged to consider curriculum delivery modifications and a comprehensive assessment strategy so as not to disadvantage individuals with low spatial ability.

Are Anatomy PhDs Nearing Extinction or Adapting to Change? United States Graduate Education Trends in the Anatomical Sciences.

Faculty qualified to teach in the anatomical sciences are growing scarce just as the need for trained anatomists is greater than ever. Enrollments are surging in anticipation of a large physician shortfall; meanwhile, many anatomists are reaching retirement age. Who will fill the teaching gap? This study assessed trends in doctorates awarded in Anatomy and related fields within the United States (US) since 1969 and evaluated modern graduate education in the anatomical sciences. Data were compiled from the National Science Foundation Survey of Earned Doctorates. The total number of doctorates in the anatomical sciences and number of doctorates by sex and race/ethnicity were plotted for trend analysis. The number of PhD anatomy training programs within US medical schools was also assessed. Curricula and major characteristics of all active programs were evaluated through website searches and program director interviews. While doctorates in cell biology, developmental biology, and neuroscience have grown, the number of PhDs awarded in Anatomy has declined, on average, by 3.1 graduates per year to a 50-year low of only 8 graduates in 2017. Currently, 21 active doctoral programs in anatomy operate within US medical schools and fall into three general categories: anatomy education (n = 8), classic anatomy (n = 8), and anthropology/evolutionary anatomy (n = 5). Without a concerted effort by stakeholders to address the shortage, anatomists may face extinction. Expansion of the anatomy education doctoral degree may represent a necessary evolution of the field to meet job market needs and to thwart the extinction threat.

A Look at the Anatomy Educator Job Market: Anatomists Remain in Short Supply.

In 2002, a widely publicized report projected an anatomy educator shortage based on department chairpersons' perceptions. Now, 17 years later, the question lingers: "Does an anatomy educator shortage persist and, if so, how severe is the shortage?" Trends in the number, type, and fill rate of anatomy educator job openings were explored by analyzing job posting in the United States over the past two years. A survey was distributed to leaders of anatomy-related departments in the United States, Canada, and European Union. Most departmental leaders who responded (65% or more) from the United States/Canada (n = 81) and the European Union (n = 52) anticipate they will have "moderate" to "great" difficulty hiring anatomy educators in gross anatomy, histology, and embryology over the next five years. Within the United States, the number of anatomy educator job postings at medical schools more than doubled from at least 21 postings in 2017 to 52 postings in 2018. Twenty-one percent of postings between 2017 and 2018 were never filled. While the number of anatomy educator openings within the United States/Canada is perceived to remain in a steady state for the next five years, the European Union estimates a five-fold increase in the number of openings. Departmental leaders prioritize anatomy educator applicants who have teaching experience (mean ± SD = 4.64 ± 0.84 on five-point Likert scale), versatility in teaching multiple anatomy disciplines (3.93 ± 1.07), and flexibility in implementing various teaching pedagogies (3.69 ± 1.17). Collectively, these data suggest the shortage of anatomy educators continues in the United States/Canada and the European Union.

A review of U.S. Medical schools' promotion standards for educational excellence.

Phenomenon: Given the growing number of medical science educators, an examination of institutions' promotion criteria related to educational excellence and scholarship is timely. This study investigates the extent to which medical schools' promotion criteria align with published standards for documenting and evaluating educational activities. Approach: This document analysis systematically analyzed promotion and tenure (P&T) guidelines from U.S. medical schools. Criteria and promotion expectations (related to context, quantity, quality, and engagement) were explored across five educational domains including: (i) teaching, (ii) curriculum/program development, (iii) mentoring/advising, (iv) educational leadership/administration, and (v) educational measurement and evaluation, in addition to research/scholarship and service. After independent review and data extraction, paired researchers compared findings and reached consensus on all discrepancies prior to final data submission. Descriptive statistics assessed the frequency of referenced promotion criteria. Findings: Promotion-related documents were retrieved from 120 (of 185) allopathic and osteopathic U.S. medical schools. Less than half of schools (43%; 52 of 120) documented a well-defined education-related pathway for advancement in academic rank. Across five education-specific domains, only 24% (12 of 50) of the investigated criteria were referenced by at least half of the schools. The least represented domain within P&T documents was "Educational Measurement and Evaluation." P&T documents for 47% of schools were rated as "below average" or "very vague" in their clarity/specificity. Insights: Less than 10% of U.S. medical schools have thoroughly embraced published recommendations for documenting and evaluating educational excellence. This raises concern for medical educators who may be evaluated for promotion based on vague or incomplete promotion criteria. With greater awareness of how educational excellence is currently documented and how promotion criteria can be improved, education-focused faculty can better recognize gaps in their own documentation practices, and more schools may be encouraged to embrace change and align with published recommendations.

Associations between professional development benefits and PA career satisfaction.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated how professional development benefits offered by employers directly correlate to self-perceptions of leadership potential, committee involvement, and career satisfaction among physician assistants (PAs). METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the 2015 AAPA National Survey and 2016 AAPA Salary Survey explored the associations between the aforementioned variables. Bivariate correlations were used to evaluate the associations between variables. RESULTS: Self-perceived leadership attributes were found to be mildly and positively correlated with the number of committees a PA was involved in (P < .001; correlation coefficient (CC) = 0.245). Of the investigated factors, only leadership potential was significantly correlated with career satisfaction (P ≤ .001; CC = 0.059). The proportion of professional development fees, memberships, and expenses covered by employers had no bearing on career satisfaction (P = .438). CONCLUSIONS: Irrespective of the benefits received, PAs were satisfied with their careers. Intrinsic rewards may have a greater positive association with career satisfaction than extrinsic benefits alone.

Breaking with Tradition: A Scoping Meta-Analysis Analyzing the Effects of Student-Centered Learning and Computer-Aided Instruction on Student Performance in Anatomy.

While prior meta-analyses in anatomy education have explored the effects of laboratory pedagogies and histology media on learner performance, the effects of student-centered learning (SCL) and computer-aided instruction (CAI) have not been broadly evaluated. This research sought to answer the question, "How effective are student-centered pedagogies and CAI at increasing student knowledge gains in anatomy compared to traditional didactic approaches?" Relevant studies published within the past 51 years were searched using five databases. Predetermined eligibility criteria were applied to the screening of titles and abstracts to discern their appropriateness for study inclusion. A summary effect size was estimated to determine the effects of SCL and CAI on anatomy performance outcomes. A moderator analysis of study features was also performed. Of the 3,035 records screened, 327 underwent full-text review. Seven studies, which comprised 1,564 participants, were included in the SCL analysis. An additional 19 studies analyzed the effects of CAI in the context of 2,570 participants. Upon comparing SCL to traditional instruction, a small positive effect on learner performance was detected (standardized mean difference (SMD = 0.24; [CI = 0.07, 0.42]; P = 0.006). Likewise, students with CAI exposure moderately outscored those with limited or no access to CAI (SMD = 0.59; [CI = 0.20, 0.98]; P = 0.003). Further analysis of CAI studies identified effects (P ≤ 0.001) for learner population, publication period, interventional approach, and intervention frequency. Overall, learners exposed to SCL and supplemental CAI outperformed their more classically-trained peers as evidenced by increases in short-term knowledge gains. Anat Sci Educ. © 2018 American Association of Anatomists.

Assessing Burnout Among Advanced Practice Providers (APPs) Compared with APP Trainees.

BACKGROUND: This study explored the prevalence of burnout syndrome among advanced practice providers (APPs = physician assistants (PAs) and advanced practice nurses (APNs)) and physician assistant students in training to become APPs. While previous research has focused on understanding burnout in a myriad of health professions, burnout among APPs and APP trainees has been underexplored. As such, this work serves as a primer for establishing benchmark levels of burnout in these specific healthcare provider/trainee populations. METHODS: This study distributed a modified Maslach Burnout Inventory (MBI) to a sample of 297 APPs and 1200 PA students. Mean differences in burnout scores were compared against a national reference sample of healthcare professionals using one sample t tests and linear regression explored relationships among demographics and burnout dimension scores. RESULTS: APPs (n = 124) and APP trainees (n = 230) who responded to the survey displayed average levels of burnout, though both populations expressed significantly lower personal accomplishment scores than the national reference sample. No significant differences were detected between APNs and practicing PAs (p = 0.761). Increased age was negatively associated with depersonalization scores suggesting that APP trainees and younger APPs are at higher risk of developing severe burnout and may need additional support in their training and early careers. Furthermore, the prevalence of burnout between APPs and APP trainees was found to be comparable, suggesting that burnout from training may persist into practice. CONCLUSIONS: A small proportion of APPs and APP trainees may be at risk of developing severe burnout. Individuals in these "at risk" populations may need additional support during training and perhaps later on in practice.

What Does a Modern Anatomist Look like? Current Trends in the Training of Anatomy Educators.

Anatomical sciences are foundational to the health professions, yet little is known about the qualifications of anatomy educators at the graduate and professional level in the United States. Moreover, there is concern that the number of qualified anatomy educators being trained may be insufficient to meet the growing demand posed by new and expanded programs in medicine and allied health specialties. The authors surveyed anatomists from across the country to (i) characterize the educational credentials of current anatomy educators and (ii) assess the perceived need for education-focused postdoctoral positions or formal mentorships to prepare anatomists for teaching-intensive faculty positions. To probe the survey responses more deeply, one-on-one interviews were conducted with eight individuals selected to represent a diverse sample of respondents in terms of institution, gender, and academic rank. Results indicate that 30-40% of educators at the graduate level and approximately 60% of those at the undergraduate level lack graduate coursework in histology, embryology, and neuroanatomy. Forty-five percent of respondents had completed a postdoctoral fellowship. Eighty-six percent replied "yes/maybe" to the question of whether an anatomy education postdoctoral fellowship would benefit doctoral graduates. The top 3 reasons for this recommendation were to (i) establish independent educational research, (ii) improve a publication record, and (iii) gain additional teaching experience. Notable weaknesses of education-focused postdoctoral training were related to finances, fear of exploitation, and undervaluing of teaching. Moving forward, postdoctoral fellowships and other forms of postgraduate training may represent a key strategy for training anatomists in the current educational climate. Anat Sci Educ 00: 000-000. © 2018 American Association of Anatomists.

Closing a window - opening a door: A response to the letter to the editor.

In this response, the authors of "A meta-analysis of anatomy laboratory pedagogies" (Wilson, 2018) make counter arguments to a letter submitted to the editor while encouraging academicians to consider a more modern perspective of anatomy education in the context of changing curricular models. While the authors agree the dissection laboratory is fertile ground for cultivating professional skill development, in more modern settings there are a myriad of outlets and experiences through which trainees can gain the necessary exposure to the same professional skills which are often touted as being informally developed in the anatomy laboratory. Overall, the authors advocate for closing the window on evaluating short-term anatomy knowledge outcomes so that the door can be opened to evaluating the effects of dissection on long-term knowledge gains and determining whether there are irreplaceable teaching advantages within hidden/informal curricula in the anatomy laboratory. Clin. Anat. 31:1207-1209, 2018. © 2018 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.