Cadaveric dissection has been considered the gold standard however with advancements intechnology AI softwares and virtual simulations have become widely used. However advances in 3D anatomy platforms, virtual reality, augmented reality and AI driven chatbot tools have created realistic, repeatable and scalable supplements or alternatives to traditional cadaveric dissection and prosection.Digital solutions can reduce dependence on cadaver supply, increase scalability and support remote education. Anatomy is a foundational discipline in medical education, forming the structural basis for clinical reasoning and procedural competence. Cadaveric dissection and prosection have long been regarded as the cornerstone of anatomy teaching due to their ability to demonstrate real human anatomy, normal variations, and spatial relationships. ¹˒² Exposure to cadavers also contributes to professional identity formation, ethical sensitivity, and respect for the human body.³

However,cadaver based teaching faces challenges such as high costs, limited availability of specimens, time constraints, and emotional stress among learners.⁴ In response,digital anatomy tools incorporating three-dimensional visualization and artificial intelligence have gained prominence, particularly during the COVID-19  pandemic  when access to dissection halls was restricted.⁵

Despite increasing adoption of digital platforms, there is ongoing debate regarding their adequacy as replacements for cadaveric learning. This study aims to compare cadaveric prosection and an AI-based digital anatomy application to evaluate their effectiveness in undergraduate medical education.

Research Question:

Does AI software-based digital anatomy learning achieve comparable or superior learning outcomes than cadaveric prosection in spatial understanding, knowledge and practical skills after an equivalent period of instructive teaching?

Research Hypothesis:

AI software- based digital anatomy is more effective in achieving anatomy learning outcomes in terms of 3D spatial understanding, knowledge and Practical skills.

Review of Literature:

Large surveys show strong student acceptance of digital tools for flexibility and repeat practice; nonetheless, many students and educators consider cadaveric dissection important for realism and professional formation. Preferences vary by cohort and prior exposure. Evidence is mixed. Some longitudinal or follow-up studies report similar retention between groups; others show better retention when digital tools are used as adjuncts rather than replacements. High quality RCTs with extended follow-ups are limited. Multiple controlled studies and trials show no inferiority of digital modalities for factual anatomy tests and superiority for spatial tasks. Multiple studies have emphasized the educational value of cadaveric anatomy in developing deep anatomical understanding and clinical correlation.¹˒⁶Cadaver-based learning has also been shown to foster empathy, professionalism, and ethical awareness among medical students.³˒⁷

Conversely, digital anatomy platforms provide interactive 3D models, layered visualization, and the ability to repeat learning at one’s own pace. Research suggests that students using digital anatomy tools demonstrate learning outcomes comparable to those achieved through traditional methods, particularly for short-term knowledge retention.⁸˒⁹ Learner satisfaction and engagement are often reported to be higher with digital tools due to their accessibility and user-friendly interfaces.¹⁰

Several authors advocate a blended or hybrid approach, combining cadaveric and digital methods to leverage the strengths of both modalities.⁶˒¹¹ However, evidence from the Indian medical education context remains limited, necessitating further comparative studies.

Research Gap: Rigorous trials comparing AI based adaptive Virtual Reality(VR) teaching with cadaveric prosection for longt erm retention and clinical skill transfers are limited. Development and evaluation of high fidelity haptics and standardized outcome instruments will clarify when software can fully substitute cadaveric learning. Cost-benefit analyses comparing long term program outcomes are necessary.

AIM & OBJECTIVE

To compare the effectiveness of cadaveric prosection and digital learning AI software“Complete Anatomy” based virtual simulations.

METHODOLOGY

Study Setting was Anatomy department (Digital Lab Demonstration hall) of Palakkad institute of medical sciences.

Inclusion criteria:

Students with no prior exposure to formal anatomy courses.

Exclusion criteria:

Students with prior advanced anatomy training or reluctance to participate in dissection.

Study design was Quasi experimental cross over design (Comparative interventional study design)

Study subjects were 100 Phase I MBBS students of Palakkad Institute of Medical Sciences with 100 sample size (n=100)

Two groups A and B were identified with 50 each for comparative interventional cross over study.

Cadaveric Prosection for Group A and AI software for Group B with 6 exposures (interventions with cross over) Study Tools included were OSPE, Pre/Post test MCQs,Lab Mannequin

Data collection was done with Students satisfaction Questionnaires: Likert scale score Data Analysis was done using Statistical tools: unpaired t test and chi square test

Concept map

• Preparation of Project proposal and draft presentation at Nodal centre
• Refining the proposal Presentation in IRB Presentation in IEC
• Presentation of Final Proposal to the Nodal Centre Data Collection, Analysis and report writing

E-Posterpresentation

Outcome matrix

Evaluation Matrix

RESULTS

Students exposed to cadaveric prosection performed better in questions assessing spatial relationships and anatomical variability. The AI digital anatomy app group showed improved performance in image-based identification questions.

Perception scores indicated higher engagement, flexibility , and reduced anxiety in the digital learning group, while cadaveric prosection was rated superior for realism and depth of understanding. No statistically significant difference was observed in overall knowledge scores between groups.

The mean knowledge score of students taught using cadaveric prosection was marginally higher than that of students taugh tusing the AI digital anatomy application (Figure1). Cadaveric prosection learners demonstrated better performance in questions related to spatial orientation, anatomical relations, and recognition of normal anatomical variations .In contrast ,students exposed to the AI digital anatomy app performed well inidentification-based and visually oriented questions.

Overall, the difference in total mean scores between the two groups was small and did not indicate a clear superiority of one modality over the other,suggesting that both teaching methods were effective in achieving core cognitive learning objectives.

Figure 1: Comparison of mean knowledge scores (%) between cadaveric prosection and AI digital anatomy app–based teaching.

Learner perception analysis revealed a favourable attitude towards the AI digital anatomy application (Figure 2). A large proportion of students reported being highly satisfied or satisfied with the digital learning experience. Students highlighted advantages such as enhanced visualization, ease of revision, self-paced learning, and reduced anxiety during learning sessions.

A smaller proportion of students expressed neutral perceptions, while very few reported dissatisfaction, mainly citing the lack of tactile experience and reduced exposure to real anatomical variability.

Figure 2: Pie diagram showing student perception of the AI digital anatomy application.

UG MBBS Students

↓

Lecture (Baseline)

↓

Cadaveric Prosection

↓

MCQ Assessment

↓

AI Digital Anatomy App for Demonstration of corresponding portion

↓

Same MCQ Assessment

↓

Student Perception Likert score Questionnaire

↓

Data Analysis

DISCUSSION

The findings demonstrate that cadaveric prosection and AI-based digital anatomy applications contribute differently to anatomy learning.Cadaveric teaching supports contextual understanding and professional development, consistent with previous studies.³˒⁷ Digital anatomy tools enhance visualization and self-directed learning, aligning with reports of increased learner satisfaction and accessibility.⁸-¹⁰

Comparable overall knowledge outcomes suggest that AI-base ddigital tools can effectively supplement traditional methods but should not entirely replace cadaveric exposure. Blended learning models align well with competency- based medical education principles and are increasingly recommended in the literature.⁶˒¹¹

CONCLUSION

Cadaveric prosection and AI digital anatomy applications are both effective for undergraduate anatomy education. While cadaveric prosection remains essential for realism and professional formation, AI-based digital tools enhance engagement and learner autonomy. Integrating both modalities may provide the most comprehensive educational experience. Cadaveric prosection provides essential tactile and realistic experience. AI enables flexible revision of the curriculum.

Limitations

The study was limited by short duration, single-institution setting,and assessment focused primarily on cognitive outcomes. Long-term retention and affective-domain learning were not extensively evaluated. Topic specific outcomes and subjectivity in perception of data are limitations.

REFERENCES

1. Estai M, Bunt S. Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review. Ann Anat.2024;246:151966.
2. Cornett CA, Davidovitch RI, KayeID, Feroe AG, Milby AH. Virtual dissection and cadaveric dissection: learning outcomes and student satisfaction. Sci 2024;14:11293.
3. Sugand K, Abrahams P, Khurana A.The anatomy of anatomy: are view for its modernization. Anat Sci Educ.2023;16(4):533-
4. Mouritsen E, Patten D, Ward JP. Three-dimensional virtual anatomy as a new approach for medical education. Educ Sci.2023;13(5):456.
5. Fyfe G, Fyfe S,Dye DE.Mixed reality as a supplement to cadaveric dissection: a randomized controlled trial. Anat Sci Educ. 2024;17(2):212-
6. Chatha WA, et al. From scalpel to simulation: Reviewing Future of cadaveric dissection and AI (Review) 2024.
7. Escobar-Poni B, Poni ES.The role of gross anatomy in promoting professionalism: a neglected opportunity! Clin Anat. 2006;19(5):461–7.
8. Yammine K, Violato C. A meta-analysis of the educational effectiveness of three-dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy. Anat Sci 2015;8(6):525–38.
9. Nicholson DT, Chalk C, Funnell WRJ, Daniel SJ. Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomized controlled study of a computer-generated three-dimensional anatomical ear model. Med Educ. 2006;40(11):1081–7.
10. Preece D, Williams SB, Lam R, Weller R. “Let’s get physical”: advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and textbooks in learning imaging anatomy. Anat Sci Educ. 2013;6(4):216–24.
11. Trelease RB. Fromchalkboard, slides, and paper to e-learning: how computing technologies have transformed anatomical sciences education. Anat Sci Educ. 2016;9(6):583–602.