Background: Anatomy education has shifted from cadaveric dissection to integrated approaches incorporating imaging modalities such as ultrasound (US), computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging, reflecting their growing role in clinical care. Integration may enhance spatial understanding, reinforce three-dimensional learning, and improve clinical relevance. Hands-on tools like US enable real-time visualization, promoting active learning and supporting the transition to clinical training. Confidence in anatomy and imaging interpretation is essential for clinical preparedness and is associated with improved diagnostic reasoning, procedural skills, and engagement. Early imaging exposure may also influence interest in radiology. However, integration varies across institutions, and its educational impact remains unclear.
Objective: To evaluate whether an integrated anatomy–imaging curriculum is associated with differences in medical students’ confidence in anatomy and interest in radiology compared with less-integrated curricula.
Methods: This cross-sectional survey will include medical students who have completed third-year clinical rotations at multiple institutions. Surveys will be distributed via institutional listservs after IRB approval. Data collected will include demographics and curricular exposure (cadaveric dissection, US training, imaging lectures, curriculum structure). Likert-scale items will assess confidence in anatomy, clinical preparedness, and radiology interest. Comparative analyses and multivariable regression will adjust for potential confounders.
Results: Data collection is pending. Outcomes include self-reported confidence in anatomy, imaging interpretation, clinical preparedness, and radiology interest. Quantitative and thematic analyses will be performed. Limitations include self-report bias and the cross-sectional design. Conclusions: Findings will inform curriculum development by evaluating medical students’ perceptions of integrated anatomy–imaging education and identifying benefits and gaps in current approaches.
Objective: To evaluate whether an integrated anatomy–imaging curriculum is associated with differences in medical students’ confidence in anatomy and interest in radiology compared with less-integrated curricula.
Methods: This cross-sectional survey will include medical students who have completed third-year clinical rotations at multiple institutions. Surveys will be distributed via institutional listservs after IRB approval. Data collected will include demographics and curricular exposure (cadaveric dissection, US training, imaging lectures, curriculum structure). Likert-scale items will assess confidence in anatomy, clinical preparedness, and radiology interest. Comparative analyses and multivariable regression will adjust for potential confounders.
Results: Data collection is pending. Outcomes include self-reported confidence in anatomy, imaging interpretation, clinical preparedness, and radiology interest. Quantitative and thematic analyses will be performed. Limitations include self-report bias and the cross-sectional design. Conclusions: Findings will inform curriculum development by evaluating medical students’ perceptions of integrated anatomy–imaging education and identifying benefits and gaps in current approaches.