Transforming Medical Education Through Intelligent Tools: A Bibliometric Exploration of Digital Anatomy Teaching

Abstract

The teaching of human anatomy is experiencing significant transformation. Particularly in recent years, incorporating new digital technologies has drastically changed the approach to education. Our bibliometric study aims to investigate trends and issues from 2004 to 2024 related to digital technology in human anatomy teaching. The publication trend in the field has steadily increased over the years, peaking in 2022 and declining in 2023. Despite the limited statistics for 2024, we do not project an exponential increase in publications. Co-citation analysis identified notable references that significantly influenced the field, emphasizing modernization through innovative methodologies. Leading a significant portion of global collaboration, the United States promoted robust multilateral partnerships. Co-occurrence word analysis highlighted the merging of current technology with student-centered learning approaches, reflecting a shift towards more interactive and immersive learning experiences. Thematic map analysis identified distinct research areas with emerging or declining themes. The analysis of topic trends over the last five years revealed a persistent interest in terms like “palmar” and “carpal”, as well as innovative technologies like “cone beam computed tomography”, “augmented reality”, and “virtual reality”. Our bibliometric study revealed a sector in constant transformation, presenting a scenario where integrating technology with traditional teaching methods could enhance medical students’ comprehension of human anatomy. On the other hand, it also highlighted the anticipated challenges of ensuring equal access to cutting-edge technology, providing sufficient training for academic staff, and addressing emerging ethical issues.

1. Introduction

Historically, human anatomy teaching has relied on methodologies such as lectures accompanied by slide presentations and audio commentary, prosections and dissections, clinical case studies, and independent learning activities utilizing two-dimensional graphics (Turney, 2007; Singh et al., 2015). Nevertheless, this traditional approach is partially inadequate to prepare students for the rapid expansion of medical knowledge expected in the twenty-first century. Two-dimensional graphics restrict the capacity for creativity and visual expression, therefore restricting the association with therapeutic sciences (Azer & Azer, 2016; J. Wang et al., 2024). The capacity to visualize is fundamental for understanding the human body, and students typically struggle to understand three-dimensional structures when they are described in a textual format (Silén et al., 2022; J. Wang et al., 2024). A new generation of students expects their education to take place in a technologically rich learning environment with varying degrees of technological integration in the age of digitalization. On the other hand, exclusively relying on traditional cadaver-based teaching is insufficient to provide the essential need for ongoing medical advancement (McLachlan et al., 2004; Ghosh, 2017; Ha et al., 2023). Nevertheless, a portion of students continue to express a strong preference for tactile, cadaver-based teaching methods (Korf et al., 2008). For example, Bahşi et al. (2021) underlined that dissection stimulates emotional connection and provides a tactile, three-dimensional comprehension of anatomical structures, which is difficult to mimic using digital tools. Similarly, research in a graduate-entry medical school indicated that students mostly perceived dissections as enhancing their learning experience and reported an increased comprehension of anatomy (Dissabandara et al., 2015).

Time-consuming careful dissection requires access to dissection labs, which is usually restricted (Papa & Vaccarezza, 2013; Ghosh, 2020). Maintaining a dissection laboratory comes with great expenses as well (Onigbinde et al., 2021; Webb et al., 2022). Although, at the same time, some universities throughout the world are still reinvesting in cadaver labs to address educational and clinical demands (Habicht et al., 2018; Memon, 2018; Lorke et al., 2023).

In recent times, the area of human anatomy teaching has seen a notable transformation, shifting from conventional techniques to embracing a new frontier of innovative technology (Drake et al., 2009; Sugand et al., 2010; Patra et al., 2022; Raja et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2024). Digital technologies are increasingly extensively employed efficiently in medical education, especially for teaching anatomy (Drake et al., 2009; Sugand et al., 2010; Patra et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2024; C. Wang et al., 2024). Many medical schools have changed their anatomy instruction in recent years by including virtual and augmented reality, 3D digital anatomy models, virtual dissection, and other computer-based learning tools in their courses (Wickramasinghe et al., 2022). Dynamic and innovative methodologies in anatomy teaching might improve student involvement and engagement (Sugand et al., 2010; Iwanaga et al., 2021; Boomgaard et al., 2022; Patra et al., 2022; Richards, 2023; Bankar et al., 2024). Multiple studies contribute to elucidating this change (Drake et al., 2009; Sugand et al., 2010; AbouHashem et al., 2015; Maresky et al., 2019; Patra et al., 2022; Lin et al., 2024). An illustration of improved learning outcomes in anatomy education may be found in the research conducted by Moro et al. (2017), which demonstrates that the use of virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) can enhance students’ interest and motivation (Moro et al., 2017). AbouHashem et al. (2015) showed that the use of 3D-printed models could help students understand complex anatomical linkages and enhance their spatial reasoning skills (AbouHashem et al., 2015). High-risk surgical procedures require precise anatomical knowledge, which can be enhanced through virtual simulations and cadaveric dissection. Maresky et al. (2019) showed that VR simulations could assist medical students in increasing surgical skills and confidence. While digital tools offer scalability and flexibility, studies reveal critical limitations. Webb et al. (2022) reported that a quota of students in digital-only programs struggled with spatial relationships during clinical rotations compared to those with cadaveric experience as well. Furthermore, Wickramasinghe et al. (2022) emphasize, despite the benefits in learning, that over-reliance on virtual platforms risks depersonalizing medical education by reducing opportunities for collaborative dissection and tactile feedback.

Bibliometric analysis commonly refers to research that uses several variables to produce a detailed state of the trends and topics of a specific field by the analysis of scholarly publications over a specific period (Mazzone et al., 2023; Pezzino et al., 2023; Passas, 2024; Pezzino et al., 2024a, 2024b). The bibliometric research trends and issues related to the field of the use of digital technology in human anatomy teaching are partial (Li et al., 2022; Osorio-Toro et al., 2022; Fan et al., 2023). Moreover, although previous bibliometric studies provide interesting analyses, they differ from our study. Our bibliometric research offers a thorough and up-to-date examination of the topic from 2004 to 2024. We analyze developing themes and trends using the Dimensions database in combination with advanced bibliometric applications (van Eck & Waltman, 2010; Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017; Hook et al., 2018; Adams et al., 2018). This database has the potential to give a novel viewpoint compared to earlier research that utilized other datasets, and it may offer a broad comprehension of the impact of digital technology on anatomical learning. The goal of this paper is to provide an overview of the issue, identify emerging trends, and offer essential direction for future research and development in the field of anatomical education technology.

2. Materials and Methods

We conducted an extensive literature search using the freely accessible version of the Dimensions database (Hook et al., 2018; Adams et al., 2018). Dimensions is a worldwide academic database that contains approximately 1.4 billion citations, datasets, patents, and policy papers from millions of scholarly publications (Hook et al., 2018; Adams et al., 2018). We utilized appropriate terms to locate the pertinent literature from 2004 to 2024 in the field. To avoid bias induced by ongoing database revisions, documents should be extracted and exported within one day. The date of our retrieval was 27 July 2024. The research string used was the following: (“human anatomy” OR “anatomical education” OR “anatomy teaching” OR “anatomy learning” OR “anatomical learning” OR “gross anatomy” OR “anatomical sciences”) AND (“digital” OR “virtual” OR “3D” OR “simulation” OR “computer-assisted” OR “e-learning” OR “online learning” OR “technology-enhanced learning” OR “interactive” OR “multimedia”). Data mining was performed in the titles and abstracts, and the publication type was “Article”. By thoroughly examining the retrieved publications, we verified the efficacy of our search strategy. The information extracted from the Dimensions database was collected and stored in CSV format. The free-access version of Dimensions provided several features that could be used in conjunction with the software VOSviewer (version 1.6.20) (van Eck & Waltman, 2010) to perform the processing and map visualization of the following datasets (in order in the article): publication trend, analysis of most cited journals and articles, analysis of document co-citation references, country productivity and cooperation, institution productivity and cooperation, author productivity and cooperation, co-authorship analysis, and the co-occurrence map based on the text data in the title and abstract fields. Moreover, using the Bibliometrix (version 4.3.0) and Biblioshiny (version 4.1) software (Aria & Cuccurullo, 2017), we conducted a thematic map study and analyzed trend topics. Bibliometrix is an R package with a range of tools. We installed and then loaded the Bibliometrix R package into R Studio (version 2024.04.2+764). The Biblioshiny application was launched by typing the command Biblioshiny into the R console. Designed as a web-based tool, Biblioshiny facilitates R’s Bibliometrix package usage. Obtained in “CSV” format from the Dimensions database, the bibliographic dataset was uploaded to the Biblioshiny interface.

3. Results

3.1. Analysis of Publication and Citation Trend

Our search found 2227 scientific papers in the chosen field of digital anatomy education. Indicating a dynamic and changing scenario, Figure 1 and Figure 2 show, respectively, the publication and citation trends between 2004 and 2024. Over these 20 years, the data showed a generally increasing trend in publishing volume, with notable variations at intervals (Figure 1). Starting at 18, there were rather few publications in 2004, a number that rose gradually, reaching 50 in 2006. The publication volume indicated slight fluctuations between 2006 and 2010, peaking in 2009 at 63 and then declining to 48 in 2010. From 2010 to 2014, there was a modest but consistent rise that resulted in 85 papers in 2014. Beginning with 2015, publication volume showed a more notable increase; 2016 saw a peak of 108 papers. Despite minor fluctuations, this upward trend continued until 2017, ultimately hitting a peak of 139 in 2019. The number of publications increased from 165 in 2019 to 215 in 2021, indicating a substantial period of growth during these years. The field experienced its highest level of output activity in 2022, with a significant total of 255 publications. However, there was then a drop in 2023, with just 208 publications released. With 129 publications, the trend continued to decline in 2024. Although the partial data for 2024 does not fully reflect the year’s publishing volume, the anticipated growth does not align with exponential projection.

Figure 2 presents an analysis of citations during the same period. With notable high peaks and variations, the data show a constant rise in the citation count. Starting with a low of 5 citations in 2004, there was a gradual increase, reaching 384 citations by 2010. With citations rising to 591 in 2013 and 1107 in 2014, the upward trend persisted. Beginning in 2015, there was a notable increase in the number of citations, reaching 1589 in 2016 and reaching its highest point at 5275 in 2023. This increase is most likely due to the growing interest in digital technologies and their rapid acceptance during the COVID-19 outbreak. Still, there was a further decline; the number of references dropped to 2895 in 2024. The observed pattern suggests that the progress of technology has increased interest in digital anatomy education. Maintaining this advance, however, presents challenges. As for the publication trend (Figure 1), the anticipated increase is inconsistent with exponential expectations.

Ranked by publication count,

Table 1. The top 20 most productive journals in the field, detailing their total number of publications, total citations, and mean citations per publication (MCP). All the numbers were derived from Dimensions on 27 July 2024.

Journal Name	Publications	Citations	MCP
The FASEB Journal	483	141	0.29
Anatomical Sciences Education	184	9628	52.33
Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy	43	621	14.44
Clinical Anatomy	42	804	19.14
International Journal of Morphology	35	153	4.37
Medical Physics	32	1754	54.81
Medical Science Educator	32	314	9.81
Physics in Medicine and Biology	26	1300	50
BMC Medical Education	23	684	29.74
Cureus	20	224	11.2
Annals of Anatomy—Anatomischer Anzeiger	18	1044	58
Journal of Physics Conference Series	12	54	4.5
Journal of Anatomy	11	113	10.27
Morphologie	11	207	18.82
Academic Radiology	10	313	31.3
British Journal of Surgery	10	1	0.1
Folia Morphologica	9	133	14.78
PLOS ONE	9	214	23.78
Advances in Medical Education and Practice	9	106	11.78
Scientific Reports	9	101	11.22

lists the 20 most productive journals in the field under investigation. Leading with 483 publications, “The FASEB Journal” has a rather low citation mean of 0.29. By contrast, with 184 publications, “Anatomical Sciences Education” has a high citation mean of 52.33, signifying significant influence. With citation means of 14.44 and 19.14, “Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy” and “Clinical Anatomy”, respectively, have 43 and 42 publications. The “International Journal of Morphology” and “Medical Physics” published 35 and 32 articles, respectively. However, there is a significant difference in their average citation values, with the former having a mean citation value of 4.37 and the latter having a mean citation value of 54.81. Similarly, “Medical Science Educator” and “Physics in Medicine and Biology” exhibit a similar pattern, with 32 and 26 publications and citation counts of 9.81 and 50, respectively. The journals “BMC Medical Education” and “Cureus” have published 23 and 20 articles, respectively. They have citation counts of 29.74 and 11.2. “Annals of Anatomy—Anatomischer Anzeager” has a high citation mean of 58 and includes a total of 18 publications. The “Journal of Physics Conference Series” and “Journal of Anatomy” have published 12 and 11 articles, respectively, with citation values of 4.5 and 10.27. The journals “Morphologie” and “Academic Radiology” have published 11 and 10 articles, respectively. The citation counts for these journals are 18.82 and 31.3. Despite having 10 publications, the “British Journal of Surgery” has a low average citation rate of 0.1. The journals “Folia Morphologica”, “PLOS ONE”, “Advances in Medical Education and Practice”, and “Scientific Reports” each have nine publications. The citation values for these publications are 14.78, 23.78, 11.78, and 11.22, respectively. These data highlight the diverse range of journals that contribute to the area, with varying levels of impact shown by their citation counts.

Upon analyzing the production of the top 10 journals listed in Table 1 on a yearly basis, it becomes clear that publishing productivity exhibits distinct patterns between the years 2004 and 2024, as shown in

Table 2. Yearly publication output of top 10 journals in the field. All numbers derived from Dimensions on 27 July 2024. Faseb J: The FASEB Journal; Anat Sci Educ: Anatomical Sciences Education; Surg Radiol Anat: Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy; Clin Anat: Clinical Anatomy; Int J Morphol: International Journal of Morphology; Med Phys: Medical Physics; Med Sci Educ: Medical Science Educator; Phys Med Biol: Physics in Medicine and Biology; Bmc Med Educ: BMC Medical Education; Cureus: Cureus Journal.

Year	Faseb J	Anat Sci Educ	Surg Radiol Anat	Clin Anat	Int J Morphol	Med Phys	Med Sci Educ	Phys Med Biol	Bmc Med Educ	Cureus
2024	0	11	5	5	0	0	3	1	6	3
2023	0	13	3	3	5	2	8	0	3	5
2022	48	17	9	8	6	0	2	1	6	3
2021	44	12	5	5	1	1	3	1	0	3
2020	56	10	4	0	6	0	5	0	3	2
2019	48	7	1	1	3	0	4	1	0	2
2018	47	5	1	1	2	0	0	3	0	1
2017	58	10	3	0	4	1	3	0	0	0
2016	30	11	4	0	1	1	1	4	2	0
2015	20	9	1	1	3	6	1	0	0	0
2014	18	18	2	0	0	1	0	2	1	0
2013	25	16	0	1	0	4	2	0	0	0
2012	14	11	1	1	1	0	0	1	1	1
2011	11	11	0	1	1	2	0	3	0	0
2010	13	7	1	0	0	2	0	0	0	0
2009	15	11	0	2	0	2	0	3	0	0
2008	12	3	1	2	0	6	0	1	0	0
2007	10	2	0	1	0	1	0	3	0	0
2006	14	0	2	5	2	0	0	2	1	0
2005	0	0	0	1	0	2	0	0	0	0
2004	0	0	0	4	0	1	0	0	0	0

. With notable fluctuations over several years, the data show the variances in publication output among these journals. For example, “Anatomical Sciences Education” peaked in 2022 with 17 publications, while “The FASEB Journal” had a varied output before notably publishing 44 publications in 2021. The number of publications for “Clinical Anatomy” reached its highest point in 2022 with eight publications. As for “Medical Science Educator”, it was projected to reach its peak value in 2023, possibly achieving this milestone in 2024. The data highlight that while some publications demonstrate a consistent output, others exhibit more erratic changes, potentially due to shifting trends and research focus areas within the anatomy field.

Figure 3 depicts the visual citation analysis of journals with at least five articles and 25 citations. Journal relatedness is evaluated by the number of times they reference one another. The size of the concentric circle and the text represent the number of articles published by the journal. The thickness of the connecting lines indicates the number of citations between journals. The degree of coloration changes from dark purple to yellow based on the average amount of citations each journal received, with yellow indicating the most. Key journals such as “The FASEB Journal”, “Anatomical Sciences Education”, and “Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy” are prominently displayed, emphasizing their important contributions to the topic. As can be seen from the network, the journal Anatomical Sciences Education is in a central position, presenting a large number of interconnections with other journals in the field.

3.2. Analysis of Co-Citation References

Co-cited references are those mentioned in many papers from the Dimensions database out of the retrieved list.

Table 3. The 20 most cited references, in descending order. All the numbers were derived from Dimensions on 27 July 2024.

Title	Journal	Author	Year	Citations	Total Link Strength	Ref.
The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization	Anat Sci Educ	Sugand K. et al.	2010	105	336	(Sugand et al., 2010)
Medical education in the anatomical sciences: the winds of change continue to blow	Anat Sci Educ	Drake R.L. et al.	2009	96	297	(Drake et al., 2009)
Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review	Annals of Anatomy	Estai M. et al.	2016	87	193	(Estai & Bunt, 2016)
Teaching anatomy without cadavers	Medical Education	Mclachlan J.C. et al.	2004	75	242	(McLachlan et al., 2004)
Anatomy in a modern medical curriculum	Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England	Turney, B.W.	2007	72	187	(Turney, 2007)
Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomised controlled study of a computer-generated three-dimensional anatomical ear model	Medical Education	Nicholson D.T. et al.	2006	66	220	(Nicholson et al., 2006)
Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first- and second-year students	Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy	Azer S.A. et al.	2007	63	212	(Azer & Eizenberg, 2007)
Anatomy teaching: ghosts of the past, present and future	Medical Education	Mclachlan J.C. et al.	2006	62	222	(McLachlan & Patten, 2006)
The production of anatomical teaching resources using three-dimensional (3D) printing technology	Anat Sci Educ	McMenamin P.G. et al.	2014	61	176	(McMenamin et al., 2014)
A meta-analysis of the educational effectiveness of three-dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy	Anat Sci Educ	Yammine K. et al.	2015	61	196	(Yammine & Violato, 2015)
How medical students learn spatial anatomy	The Lancet	Garg A.X. et al.	2001	55	157	(Garg et al., 2001)
The effectiveness of virtual and augmented reality in health sciences and medical anatomy	Anat Sci Educ	Moro C. et al.	2017	55	116	(Moro et al., 2017)
The human cadaver in the age of biomedical informatics	The Anatomical Record	Aziz M.A. et al.	2002	54	195	(Aziz et al., 2015)
Cadaveric dissection as an educational tool for anatomical sciences in the 21st century	Anat Sci Educ	Ghosh S.K.	2017	48	110	(Ghosh, 2017)
Anatomical dissection as a teaching method in medical school: a review of the evidence	Medical Education	Winkelmann A.	2006	46	137	(Winkelmann, 2007)
The relative effectiveness of computer-based and traditional resources for education in anatomy	Anat Sci Educ	Khot Z. et al.	2013	45	202	(Khot et al., 2013)
Use of 3D printed models in medical education: A randomized control trial comparing 3D prints versus cadaveric materials for learning external cardiac anatomy	Anat Sci Educ	Lim K.H.A. et al.	2016	45	135	(Lim et al., 2016)
Web-based interactive 3D visualization as a tool for improved anatomy learning	Anat Sci Educ	Petersson H. et al.	2009	43	107	(Petersson et al., 2009)
Adequacy of medical school gross anatomy education as perceived by certain postgraduate residency programs and anatomy course directors	Clinical Anatomy	Cottam W.W.	1999	41	114	(Cottam, 1999)
“Let’s get physical”: advantages of a physical model over 3D computer models and textbooks in learning imaging anatomy”	Anatomical Sciences Education	Preece D. et al.	2013	39	158	(Preece et al., 2013)

displays, arranged by citation frequency, the top 20 references from the 28,799 extracted from 2227 papers. In the first position, we found the highly cited study by Sugand et al., which provided a complete review of the modernization of anatomy teaching (Sugand et al., 2010). The paper, in particular, emphasizes the importance of utilizing innovative teaching methods such as the increased use of models, imaging, simulation, and internet resources to improve anatomical education (Sugand et al., 2010). Closely following in citation counts, in the second and third ranks we found papers by Drake et al. (2009) and Estai and Bunt (2016). These papers, respectively, critically examined the best teaching strategies in anatomy and emphasized the ongoing changes in medical education. Nicholson et al. (2006), McMenamin et al. (2014), and Yammine and Violato (2015) investigate the efficacy of virtual reality, 3D printing, and three-dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy. These papers highlighted the growing interest in using cutting-edge technologies to improve educational opportunities. Cadaveric dissection plays an important role in modern anatomy education, as evidenced by the highly cited papers from McLachlan et al. (2004), Azer and Eizenberg (2007), Turney (2007), and Ghosh (2017). These studies investigate the need for dissection in curricula for integrated problem-based learning and its applicability in medical education in the twenty-first century. Overall, these top 20 papers showed a trend toward more integrated, technology-enhanced, and student-centered approaches to anatomy education, as well as ongoing debates about the role of traditional teaching methods, such as cadaveric dissection.

The co-citation network in Figure 4 analyzes the network links among the 20 most-often cited references. There are various clusters in this network, each with a distinct color. The lines linking the many nodes show references between papers, therefore demonstrating interactions and information exchange across several spheres of study. These lines’ density points to a great degree of author and research connectivity and cooperation. Studies mostly emphasizing medical education and clinical anatomy comprise the red cluster. Important players in this cluster include Drake et al. (2009), McLachlan et al. (2004), McLachlan and Patten (2006), and Sugand et al. (2010), well known in the same area, which made substantial enhancements in anatomical education and emphasized the need for anatomical knowledge in medical education. Studies on anatomy and anatomical visualization methods define the green cluster. Notable members of this cluster include Estai and Bunt, who examined the use of technology in anatomical education (Estai & Bunt, 2016), and Ghosh, who studied several viewpoints of anatomical science (Ghosh, 2017). Moreover, making major contributions to this field are Lim et al. (2016). Publications concerning surgical education and applied anatomy are the main emphasis of the blue cluster. Prominent authors in this cluster include Garg et al., who emphasized improving surgical training (Garg et al., 2001), Nicholson et al. (2006), and Preece et al. (2013), who offered ideas on the use of anatomical knowledge in surgical settings.

3.3. Country Productivity/Cooperation

Figure 5 shows the worldwide cooperative network involved in the searched field. In the network image, nine distinct clusters grouped by geographical locations illustrate the connection of research collaboration. Nations organized according to research output indicate every cluster; strongly linked nodes exhibit considerable collaboration. The core node is the “United States”, which acts as a main center of activity closely connected with other prominent countries such as “Canada”, the “United Kingdom”, and “Australia”. Strong collaboration among the surrounding clusters, including “Japan”, “Germany”, “Austria”, and “Italy”, indicates a significant impact on the scene of world research. Other nodes such as “Switzerland” and “Netherlands” show a rising presence in the field by showing increasing links to present clusters. Although the different linkages across clusters show the global aspect of anatomical research, the isolation of countries like “ Turkey”, “Indonesia”, and “Iran” suggests a probable need for enhanced collaboration or a particular concentration on certain study topics. Overall, the clustering exposes not only the distribution of research effort but also the prospect for future collaboration across bordering countries, therefore revealing the global dynamics.

Table 4. List of most productive countries in terms of publications, citations, and total link strength, in descending order by publications. All numbers derived from Dimensions on 27 July 2024.

Country	Documents	Citations	Total Link Strength
United States	727	13,356	108
Canada	199	4246	43
United Kingdom	145	4560	54
China	117	1672	29
Germany	81	2301	38
India	68	791	8
Australia	66	3225	18
Brazil	48	154	7
Italy	43	832	19
Japan	41	721	13
France	36	734	8
Netherlands	36	1292	17
South Korea	36	638	12
Switzerland	35	1048	19
Spain	34	508	11
Greece	25	431	11
Indonesia	25	173	1
Austria	21	313	15
Poland	18	230	5
Saudi Arabia	17	296	9

shows the top 20 nations according to document count, along with their corresponding citation counts and general link strength. With 727 papers and 13,356 references, the United States proved to be the leading contributor. Along with this notable production, it had also the highest overall connection strength, pointing to exceptional global collaboration. Canada and the United Kingdom followed, with 199 and 145 papers, respectively. The UK had a larger citation impact, with 4560 citations compared to Canada’s 4246 citations. China was fourth in document production (117), but considering its volume, its citation count was less extensive (1656). Conversely, Australia, with less documentation (66), had a relatively high citation count (3225), suggesting the notable effect of its field-based research. With a document count of 81 and 2301 citations, Germany topped the European countries, followed by Italy, France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Spain, in document count. An Asian presence was clear with Japan and South Korea, both of which produced 36 articles; Japan received more citations (721 vs. 638). Interestingly, several countries showed extraordinary collaboration even with less documentation. Austria, for example, with 21 documents, had a total connection strength of 15, surpassing countries with higher document outputs such as Brazil (48 documents, link strength 7) and India (68 documents, link strength 8). The data also indicated likely future study sites. For example, Indonesia equaled Greece in document count (25) but exhibited lower citation and cooperation levels, suggesting a growing but less internationally linked research community.

3.4. Institutions’ Productivity and Cooperation

The research on digital technologies in human anatomy education was supported by 2147 institutions. The top 20 institutions with the highest number of publications and citations are listed in

Table 5. List of most productive institutions in terms of publications, citations, and total link strength, in descending order by publications. All numbers derived from Dimensions on 27 July 2024.

Organization	Documents	Citations	Total Link Strength
Western University	68	915	22
University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus	33	46	7
McMaster University	32	359	19
University of British Columbia	32	111	2
Johns Hopkins University	23	1880	10
West Virginia University	22	86	6
Mayo Clinic	20	1197	5
University of Michigan–Ann Arbor	20	344	2
University of Toronto	19	684	13
All India Institute of Medical Sciences	17	401	5
Harvard University	17	930	12
University of Florida	17	1107	9
George Washington University	15	346	6
National and Kapodistrian University of Athens	15	268	9
Stanford University	15	235	5
University of California, Los Angeles	15	420	3
Oakland University	14	247	7
Universidade de São Paulo	14	59	2
University of California, San Francisco	14	245	8
University of Iowa	14	126	4

. According to the institutional research performance analysis, Western University was the most productive, with 68 published documents. At the same time, Johns Hopkins University was the most impactful, with a total of 1880 citations, and the Mayo Clinic and the University of Florida also had considerable research influence, with 1197 and 1107 citations, respectively.

Figure 6 shows the partnership network concerning academic and research institutes related to the field. Each node is an institution, and their sizes indicate the number of interactions. The strength of cooperation is indicated by the edges connecting the nodes. It is evident that, due to its location in the center of the network, Johns Hopkins University crucially contributes to the establishment of significant cooperation between numerous institutions. Its large size and centrality in the supply chain illustrate that it exhibits a high level of influence and involvement in the research community. In addition, the node sizes and the distribution of thick lines in the graph identify the University of Florida, the University of Ottawa, and the University of Alberta as significant institutions due to their large number of collaboration relationships. The network reveals various groups of closely working universities. For example, Western University, the Mayo Clinic, and the University of Alberta form three closely connected clusters, indicating significant regional or thematic collaboration. Part of a different cluster, European institutions such the University Medical Center Utrecht and University Medical Center Hamburg reflect regional cooperation trends across Europe. Some universities, including Dongguk University and Ajou University, are positioned on the perimeter of the network and show less cooperation than the central universities. This peripheral orientation implies that these universities are less linked to the larger research network. Both the Cleveland Clinic and the All India Institute of Medical Sciences seem more isolated, which emphasizes possible areas for larger group activities. Between Australian institutions, North America, Europe, and Asia, the network reveals noteworthy international collaboration. This emphasizes the worldwide nature of study in the field, as the progress of the discipline depends on cross-continental cooperation. The thickness of the lines separating the nodes reveals the degree of cooperation. In particular, Johns Hopkins University has excellent cooperative ties with universities such as the University of Florida and the University of Ottawa, therefore reflecting regular and significant joint research projects. Strong regional collaboration is suggested by other evident close relationships between institutions within the same cluster, including Western University and the Mayo Clinic.

3.5. Authors’ Productivity and Cooperation

A total of 8156 authors made contributions to the publishing outputs from 2004 to 2024 in the field.

Table 6. The top 20 most productive authors in the field in descending order by publications, detailing their total number of publications, total citations, and mean citations per publication (MCP). All the numbers were derived from Dimensions on 27 July 2024.

Author	Institution	Country	Publications	Citations	MCP
Bruce Charles Wainman	McMaster University	Canada	30	350	11.67
Lisa M J Lee	University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus	United States	17	64	3.76
Timothy D Wilson	Western University	Canada	17	410	24.12
Kirsten Marie Brown	George Washington University	United States	14	290	20.71
Choonsik Lee	National Cancer Institute	United States	13	754	58
Majid Doroudi	University of British Columbia	Canada	12	4	0.33
Kem A Rogers	Western University	Canada	12	181	15.08
Danielle Brewer-Deluce	McMaster University	Canada	12	26	2.17
Josh P Mitchell	McMaster University	Canada	12	16	1.33
Stefanie Marie Attardi	Oakland University	United States	12	328	27.33
Dimitrios G Chytas	University of Peloponnese	Greece	10	31	3.1
Dzintra Kazoka	Riga Stradiņš University	Latvia	10	15	1.5
Lorraine C Jadeski	University of Guelph	Canada	10	3	0.3
Mara Pilmane	Riga Stradiņš University	Latvia	10	15	1.5
Wojciech Pawlina	Mayo Clinic	United States	10	1069	106.9
Samuel Marquez	SUNY Downstate Medical Center	United States	9	3	0.33
Wesley Emmett Bolch	University of Florida	United States	9	696	77.33
Glenn Michael Fox	University of Michigan–Ann Arbor	United States	9	0	-
Danielle F Royer	University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus	United States	8	1	0.13
Maria N Piagkou	National and Kapodistrian University of Athens	Greece	8	31	3.88

presents a comprehensive comparison of the top 20 academics. It includes information about their affiliations, places of origin, and bibliometric data. The data comprise the count of publications, the aggregate number of citations, and the average number of citations per publication for each researcher. The researchers are associated with many academic and research institutes, mostly situated in North America (Canada and the United States), with a small number from Europe (Greece and Latvia). Significant associations include McMaster University, the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Western University, and the National Cancer Institute.

The publication count varies from a minimum of 8 to a high of 30, with Bruce Charles Wainman from McMaster University being the most productive. The range of total citations is rather wide, ranging from 0 to 1069. Notably, Wojciech Pawlina from the Mayo Clinic has the greatest total citations and also the highest average citations per article, with a mean of 106.9.

There is not always a straightforward connection between the quantity of publications and the influence they have in terms of citations. Choonsik Lee of the National Cancer Institute has written 13 publications, which have garnered a total of 754 citations. This amounts to an average of 58 citations per publication, showing a high degree of recognition and a significant effect despite a relatively modest number of articles in contrast to other experts.

Visual mapping (Figure 7) helps one to identify cooperative links between authors; our visual map was created using authors from the top 100 researchers, therefore offering clear information about current collaborations. The diameters of the concentric circles show the number of papers each author had published; the existence of connecting lines indicates group effort. The density of the connecting lines reveals the cooperation among the authors, and distinct clusters in different colors have been identified. The central core of the network consists of four closely related clusters (red, blue, green, and light blue). Certain authors may opt out of co-authorship and instead choose to work independently, forming individual clusters to pursue their research or writing endeavors.

We also conducted a citation analysis of the authors, where the degree of relatedness among them was determined by the frequency of their citing each other (Figure 8). The map analysis exposes n.24 groups of citations shown by varying colors. While clusters show groups of authors that often mention one other, suggesting closely connected topics of study, the centrality of particular authors shows their impact on the academic community.

The black box in Figure 8a indicates a group of authors that are tightly connected. This group is further explored in Figure 8b for a more detailed analysis. The collection comprises eight clusters and includes prominent writers including Bruce Charles Wainman, Lisa M. J. Lee, and Kirsten Marie Brown. These authors play a crucial role in the network and have robust citation connections. These authors represent an essential component of the scientific community, promoting vital collaboration and the exchange of information. The strong citation connections among these authors suggest that their work holds great importance and is much debated in the area.

3.6. Co-Occurrence Keyword Analysis

The co-occurrence of terms in the titles and abstracts of the 2227 papers acquired from the Dimensions database was examined. This study aimed to identify the most important topics and project possible future trends (Figure 9). We only included keywords that appeared 25 times or more in our analysis. We excluded items that were unrelated to the rest. The size of each node on the map represents how frequently the keyword appeared. The distance between two nodes and the width of the line connecting them represent how often pairs of keywords occurred together. The color of the nodes indicates clusters of keywords that often appeared together, giving us a sense of the main research areas in the field. The circles’ sizes in Figure 9 correspond to the frequency of the terms found in the titles and abstracts. The map reveals the existence of 497 co-occurrence terms, interconnected and organized into three distinct groups. The co-occurrence terms that constitute the red cluster focused on the concepts of “anatomy” and “study”, highlighting the core principles of anatomical instruction. These texts underscore the need to use several models, visualizations, techniques, and simulations to enhance understandings of human anatomy. Advanced technologies such as 3D printing and virtual reality were also emphasized. The green cluster places a strong emphasis on the educational journey of students. It prioritizes terms such as “student”, “knowledge”, “understanding”, and “experience” to highlight a learning approach that is centered around the needs and growth of students. Terms like “course”, “lecture”, “survey”, and “feedback”, which all highlight the need to assess and enhance teaching strategies, are also frequent in this cluster. Moreover, the words “cadaver” and “dissection” highlight the continuing significance of conventional dissection methods. Terms like “technology”, “tool”, and “use”, in the blue cluster clearly show the focus on the development and use of technical tools to enhance anatomy instruction. Moreover, the use of words like “virtual” and “augmented reality” implies that in order to enhance learning environments, immersive technologies are expanding.

3.7. Thematic Map

The theme map analysis was generated by examining the abstracts of 2227 articles obtained from the Dimensions database. This analysis offered valuable insights into the development and significance of different themes in the field. The map is divided into quadrants based on centrality and density, displaying different themes such as motor themes, basic themes, and emerging or declining themes. The sizes of the circles indicate the frequency or relative significance of each theme in the dataset. The theme map (Figure 10) analysis showed a structured landscape of topics arranged by significance and development. Motor topics including “medical students”, “medical education”, “medical school”, “cadaveric dissection”, and “learning anatomy” dominate the upper-right quadrant. These themes demonstrate their critical significance in the area since they are both current and well-developed. The basic topics in the lower-right quadrants are “anatomy education”, “virtual reality”, “teaching methods”, “learning experience”, and “augmented reality”. These are important but still evolving elements of areas of increased interest and possible innovation. The map’s major motifs, such as “anatomical structures”, the “human body”, “computed tomography”, “anatomical models”, and “magnetic resonance”, imply their continuous relevance. The prominence of the phrases “COVID-19 pandemic”, “student learning”, “learning outcomes”, “significant difference”, and “anatomy lab” in the lower-left quadrant, which shows new or declining topics, indicates a change in current emphasis. The map highlights the intersection of technology and the need to adjust educational standards, providing a thorough picture of current trends and future directions in human anatomy education.

3.8. Trend Topics

The analysis of trend topics for the last five years is shown in Figure 11. The analysis uncovered many trending issues in the area between 2019 and 2024. The sizes of the bubbles represent the phrase frequency in the abstracts. Significantly, terms such as “palmar”, “carpal”, “cbct” (cone beam computed tomography), and “screw” are juxtaposed with newer additions like “pandemic” and “COVID”, which rose to popularity during the worldwide health emergency. These terms indicate a concentration on certain anatomical and procedural elements within the discipline. The rise in the use of terms such as “AR” (augmented reality) and “VR” (virtual reality) indicates the rising incorporation of these technologies into educational methods, emphasizing the progress in technological breakthroughs. The table also demonstrates a persistent occurrence of fundamental terminology such as “medical”, “dissection”, and “methods”, highlighting their lasting significance.

4. Discussion

Our bibliometric study on the use of innovative and digital technologies in human anatomy education exposes an area with dynamic and changing landscapes. Publication outputs indicate a steady rise throughout the years with noteworthy variations, peaking at 255 publications in 2022 and then falling to 208 in 2023 (Figure 1). These results suggest that, throughout the last two decades, the discipline of digital technology in human anatomy education has drawn increasing interest, particularly in the years approaching 2022. The differences between certain years might be explained by numerous factors, including technological advancement, financial availability, and changes in study focus. Driven perhaps by the rapid acceptance of digital technologies during the COVID-19 pandemic, the peak in 2022 might be the result of increasing interest and research efforts. The latter declines in 2023 and 2024 might indicate a field-based stability or the shifting of research focus. Although 2024 referred to partial data until the end of July 2024, there is not any further predicted exponential increase indicated by the current trend. Citation patterns reflect the publishing output pattern; they peak at 5275 citations in 2023 before declining to 2895 in 2024 (Figure 2). Driven by technological improvements, these data point to a growing interest in the topic but also raise possible difficulties in preserving research momentum. Examining journal output reveals the wide spectrum of contributions with different degrees of influence (Table 1). While Anatomical Sciences Education exhibits a great influence, with fewer publications (184) and a high citation mean (52.33), the FASEB Journal leads in the number of articles (483) and has a quite low citation mean (0.29) (Table 1). This emphasizes the need to assess journal impact by considering both the volume and quality of articles. While the journal Anatomical Sciences Education has always had a large number of articles, FASEB J has had a substantial decline in recent years, as indicated by the annual publication output of the top 10 journals in the field (Table 2). With few changes, Surgical and Radiologic Anatomy as well as Clinical Anatomy remain constant. Publications by Medical Science Educator and BMC Medical Education have recently seen a surge in popularity. These disparities sometimes arise from editorial changes, sponsorship, and study aims. The citation network analysis among journals in the searched topic (Figure 3) highlights the significance of Anatomical Sciences Education, which serves as a central hub with numerous links. The various links in the FASEB Journal have a broad transdisciplinary influence. The network promotes interdisciplinary collaboration and connections in the fields.

The top 20 cited articles in Table 3 provide a comprehensive perspective of how anatomical knowledge is evolving to fit modern needs. Published in 2010 in Anatomical Sciences Education, “The anatomy of anatomy: a review for its modernization” by Sugand et al. (Sugand et al., 2010) ranks number one in Table 3. Indicating its great influence on the subject, this work has the greatest citation count (105) and overall link strength (336). The great number of citations points to how much this study has helped to shape debates on updating anatomy teaching.

Published in Anatomical Sciences Education as well, Drake et al.’s “Medical Education in the Anatomical Sciences: the winds of Change Continue to blow” was the second-most referenced work that highlights the continuous transformation in anatomy education (Drake et al., 2009). With 96 references and a total link strength of 297, this paper has been significant in directing anatomical sciences education’s course of development. One obvious tendency in Table 3 is the emphasis on innovative approaches to human anatomy training. For example, Estai and Bunt (2016), with their third-ranked paper “Best teaching practices in anatomy education: A critical review”, emphasized the need for spotting and using successful pedagogical strategies in anatomy education. Among the highly referenced works, the incorporation of technology into anatomy teaching is a recurrent motif, as can be seen from works like “Can virtual reality improve anatomy education? A randomised controlled study of a computer-generated three-dimensional anatomical ear model” by Nicholson et al. (2006) and “The production of anatomical teaching resources using three-dimensional (3D) printing technology” by McMenamin et al. (2014). The function of cadaveric dissection in contemporary medical education is yet another important subject covered in these papers. Papers like “Teaching anatomy without cadavers” by McLachlan et al. (2004) and “Do we need dissection in an integrated problem-based learning medical course? Perceptions of first- and second-year students” by Azer and Eizenberg (2007) looked at changing opinions on conventional dissection-based teaching approaches.

Additionally showing a tendency toward meta-analyses and systematic reviews is the paper “A meta-analysis of the educational effectiveness of three-dimensional visualization technologies in teaching anatomy” by Yammine and Violato (2015). In the topic of anatomy teaching, this pointed to an increasing corpus of evidence-based studies.

The co-citation analysis (Figure 4) showed how the most cited articles in Table 3 are interconnected with each other and how they are organized into clusters that define topics. Key publications emphasizing the modernization of anatomical teaching and the function of cadaveric dissection constituted the red cluster. Emphasizing the utilization of 3D technology and printing, the green cluster underlines the integration of sophisticated technologies. Emphasizing the efficiency of digital and virtual technologies, the blue cluster investigates virtual reality and digital resources as substitutes for more conventional approaches. Key themes such as the modernization of anatomical education, the acceptance of sophisticated technology, and the continuous discussion between conventional and creative teaching approaches are underlined by this map.

With 727 publications and 13,356 citations (Table 4), the United States is the leading contributor to national productivity and collaboration analysis, demonstrating strong global cooperation. The collaborative network visualization (Figure 5) revealed many groups, including European and Asian countries, indicating regional collaboration tendencies and the possibility for further global integration.

Table 5 and Figure 6 show the institutional output. Western, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, and McMaster University are the big players. Johns Hopkins, the University of Ottawa, and the University of Washington are hubs with many connections to other institutions.

Table 6 and the co-authorship network depicted in Figure 7 provide, respectively, a thorough overview of the most productive authors and their collaboration networks in the area. Regarding the network (Figure 7), the red cluster, which includes authors such as Brown Kiersten Marie from George Washington University, is one of the densest, suggesting a strong interconnectedness between its members. The blue cluster, with authors such as Wainman Bruce Charles from McMaster University, shows a well-developed network of co-authors. The green cluster, which includes Wilson Timothy D. from McMaster University, could represent a specialized subgroup or a specific research area. The blue cluster, with authors such as Lee Lisa M. J. from the University of Colorado, although less populated, highlights consistent collaboration. Authors such as Allan Edwin B. and Marquez Samuel are more distant from the main clusters, suggesting that they work independently or with fewer collaborations than the other groups. This information implies that, in academic research, success and recognition depend mostly on cooperation, and the graphic amply illustrates how cooperative networks influence citations and the effect of scientific interest in the field.

The importance of collaborative efforts in advancing new technology in human anatomy teaching was highlighted by citation analysis (Figure 8). The diversity and clustering within this network underscore the multidisciplinary nature of medical research and highlight the significance of collaboration in driving scientific progress and adapting to evolving research priorities.

The co-occurrence term analysis (Figure 9) demonstrates the convergence of advanced technology and student-centered learning, in line with the trend toward more interactive and immersive education. Anatomical education, conventional approaches, and the application of new ways to elaborate models and medical anatomical imaging constituted the red cluster, combining new and old techniques points to a balanced approach to anatomy training wherein contemporary technology improves upon conventional dissection. Terms relating to student involvement, knowledge acquisition, and feedback systems define student-centered learning in the green cluster. This emphasis on the student experience marks a pedagogical change toward more individualized and successful learning, therefore enhancing results and student satisfaction. In current human anatomy learning, technology fills a part of the blue cluster. Terms like “virtual” and “augmented reality” reveal how often immersive technology is finding expression in the teaching of human anatomy. These tools provide novel ways for observing and interacting with bodily characteristics, as well as helping students comprehend challenging concepts. The findings indicate that even if anatomical education is benefiting from technological developments in increasing amounts, conventional techniques like cadaveric dissection are still extremely important. Although their efficacy is generally assessed in concert with hands-on dissection experiences, the incorporation of technologies like virtual reality and 3D printing provides additional opportunities for improving anatomical learning.

The analysis of Figure 10’s thematic map reveals emerging tendencies in anatomical education research. In particular, the development of topics like “virtual reality” and “augmented reality” points to an increasing interest in incorporating immersive technology into anatomical training. These technologies enable three-dimensional and interactive visualizations of anatomical structures, therefore presenting novel opportunities to improve students’ educational experiences. Moro et al. (2017) suggest that VR and AR may raise students’ interest and involvement, thereby improving their learning results (Moro et al., 2017). Furthermore, the “COVID-19 pandemic” topic emphasizes how the pandemic expedited the adoption of remote teaching techniques and the usage of digital resources, radically disrupting established educational practices. With numerous educational institutions including online dissections, virtual laboratories, and digital materials in their courses, Rose (2020) conducted research showing that the epidemic accelerated the adoption of virtual learning environments (Rose, 2020). However, the absence of practical expertise and limited access to cadaveric dissection raised questions about the quality of anatomical instruction during the epidemic. Students reported difficulty understanding complex anatomical structures without direct contact with specimens (Longhurst et al., 2020). Notwithstanding these difficulties, the epidemic forced a review of conventional teaching strategies and promoted the creation of hybrid models combining online and in-person instruction. These hybrid models may combine the flexibility of online learning with the necessary hands-on experience of cadaveric dissection, therefore offering the best of both worlds (Pather et al., 2020). The centrality of topics such as “medical education” and “learning experience” emphasizes the need to create successful teaching strategies that improve the standards of medical students’ teaching. With continuous developments in imaging technologies including “computed tomography” and “magnetic resonance” playing a vital role in anatomical research and education, the prominence of “anatomical structures” and “human body” in the central themes quadrant suggests that these remain basic areas of focus. Particularly helpful for difficult and high-risk surgical procedures, the use of VR in medical education enables students to execute surgical operations in risk-free settings. For instance, a 2019 Maresky et al. study showed that VR simulations could improve medical students’ confidence and surgical abilities (Maresky et al., 2019). AR may similarly overlay digital data over physical objects to provide real-time direction during surgical procedures or dissections (Kamphuis et al., 2014). AR is a useful tool in medical education, as this capacity helps to close the gap between theoretical knowledge and practical abilities. Conversely, the motor themes emphasize the requirement of ongoing attention to conventional techniques like “cadaveric dissection” while also embracing innovative approaches, hence highlighting the fundamental elements of anatomical education (Trelease, 2010; Ghosh, 2017; De Caro et al., 2021).

The trend topics shown in Figure 11 emphasize the dynamic character of innovative technologies in human anatomy teaching throughout the last five years. The continuing interest in terms like “palmar” and “carpal” points to a continuous study in the fields of hand anatomy and disorders. The emergence and continued presence of “cbct” suggest that it is becoming increasingly significant in the field of diagnostic imaging (Scarfe & Farman, 2008; Pauwels et al., 2015). The significant increase in terms connected to the COVID-19 epidemic, including “pandemic”, “COVID”, and “online”, highlights the great influence of the pandemic on medical research and practice, thus guiding a change toward online and remote modalities (Franchi, 2020). The rising interest in “AR” and “VR” demonstrates the integration of sophisticated technology into medical education and practice, therefore providing creative ideas for teaching and patient care (Ruthenbeck & Reynolds, 2015; Kuehn, 2018). The constant significance of “technologies” and “medical” points to the general and continuous attention to medical sector technology developments. The evolving focus of research and advancements in specific domains may be observed by the shifting attention toward terms such as “bilateral”, “screw”, and “models”. Regarding the term “screw”, the data visualization illustrates that research interest in this field has varied over time, with noticeable peaks around 2023. This implies notable developments or additional investigation activity on screws, most likely in the context of orthopedic or surgical uses, throughout these years. The fact that the term appears in numerous publications shows its continuous interest and significance in medical research, especially in disciplines where screws are utilized for surgeries, like bone fixation and reconstructive surgery (Chapman et al., 1996; Ramaswamy et al., 2010; Shea et al., 2014).

5. Conclusions

Digital technologies are revolutionizing human anatomy education and provide novel opportunities for interactive and immersive learning. These tools provide many benefits, but they also bring issues that must be addressed. The use of new technology in teaching practices presents several challenges, despite its potential for significant opportunities. One of the challenges is the provision of equitable access to these technologies. Some institutions lack the resources to invest in virtual reality, augmented reality, or 3D printing, creating a distinction between well-funded and under-funded educational settings. It is crucial to strive for the development of scalable and affordable solutions that may be used in many educational settings. Faculty expansion and professional development provide an additional challenge. Teachers must possess the skills to effectively use and incorporate new technology into their instructional methods. Workshops and professional development efforts enable faculty members to stay updated with the latest advancements in anatomy instruction and acquire the necessary skills. Moreover, it is essential to consider the ethical concerns associated with the use of digital and virtual technology in medical education. It is important to carefully consider issues such as data protection, informed consent, and over-reliance on technology. It is important to strike a balance between preserving the humanistic aspects of medical education and incorporating advancements in technology. Future research on the impact of digital anatomy education on clinical skills and knowledge retention should focus on enhancing the incorporation of digital tools into anatomy courses, addressing global disparities in technology access, and conducting long-term investigations on their effects. Persistent innovation and the systematic development of anatomical teaching methods ensure that future doctors acquire the indispensable anatomical knowledge necessary to deliver exceptional patient care.