FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3175998612> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3175998612 abstract "Introduction With the increasing accessibility to new technologies such as virtual reality and augmented reality (AR), a growing number of educators are exploring how to incorporate such advances to their field of study; anatomical education is no exception. Aim The purpose of this study was to identify the different AR modalities used to teach anatomy to students, medical/veterinarian trainees and surgeons via coursework, and/or procedural training. We also examined the qualitative and quantitative assessment tools used to evaluate the performance of various AR technologies in specific teaching settings. Methods A scoping review of the Web of Science, Pubmed, Embase and Medline was performed. Search terms were variations of 1) augmented reality, 2) medical or anatomical teaching/education/training, and 3) anatomy or radiology or cadaver. Abstracts, full articles, conference presentations, and guidelines published between January 2000–September 12, 2018 were identified and screened as per Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Virtual reality was an exclusion criterion. The number of participants, level of training, name of AR modality, aim of the study, setting of the study (anatomy course vs. procedural training), object that was “augmented”, body system studied, type of assessment tools, and relevant findings were extracted from accepted studies. Results Preliminary findings suggests that Microsoft Hololens and projection-based modalities using Microsoft Kinect were the most prevalent modalities. The studies were mainly conducted in the context of an anatomy course, which primarily assessed usability, learner satisfaction and perceived benefits of AR through questionnaires using variations of the Likert scale. Certain studies also incorporated more objective findings such as pre- and post-AR knowledge tests. However, the majority of those studies failed to use validated tests. Discussion/Conclusion The current literature seems supportive of the use of AR as an adjunctive teaching tool at the very least. However, the evidence is weak given the lack of studies with robust quantitative and qualitative methodology to objectively determine the influence of the integration of AR on anatomical education. Sufficiently powered studies using validated assessment tools must be conducted to better understand the role of AR in anatomical education. This abstract is from the Experimental Biology 2019 Meeting. There is no full text article associated with this abstract published in The FASEB Journal." @default.
• W3175998612 created "2021-07-05" @default.
• W3175998612 creator A5014410642 @default.
• W3175998612 creator A5017368195 @default.
• W3175998612 creator A5022687477 @default.
• W3175998612 creator A5026151796 @default.
• W3175998612 date "2019-04-01" @default.
• W3175998612 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W3175998612 title "Scoping Review: The Use of Augmented Reality in Medical and Surgical Anatomical Education and Its Assessment Tools" @default.
• W3175998612 doi "https://doi.org/10.1096/fasebj.2019.33.1_supplement.17.5" @default.
• W3175998612 hasPublicationYear "2019" @default.
• W3175998612 type Work @default.
• W3175998612 sameAs 3175998612 @default.
• W3175998612 citedByCount "1" @default.
• W3175998612 countsByYear W31759986122022 @default.
• W3175998612 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3175998612 hasAuthorship W3175998612A5014410642 @default.
• W3175998612 hasAuthorship W3175998612A5017368195 @default.
• W3175998612 hasAuthorship W3175998612A5022687477 @default.
• W3175998612 hasAuthorship W3175998612A5026151796 @default.
• W3175998612 hasConcept C107457646 @default.
• W3175998612 hasConcept C153715457 @default.
• W3175998612 hasConcept C19527891 @default.
• W3175998612 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3175998612 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3175998612 hasConceptScore W3175998612C107457646 @default.
• W3175998612 hasConceptScore W3175998612C153715457 @default.
• W3175998612 hasConceptScore W3175998612C19527891 @default.
• W3175998612 hasConceptScore W3175998612C41008148 @default.
• W3175998612 hasConceptScore W3175998612C71924100 @default.
• W3175998612 hasIssue "S1" @default.
• W3175998612 hasLocation W31759986121 @default.
• W3175998612 hasOpenAccess W3175998612 @default.
• W3175998612 hasPrimaryLocation W31759986121 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W1671581609 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W2103248916 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W2399642638 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W2403377111 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W2406062780 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W2414186829 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W2492594223 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W2771605351 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W2889192055 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W2895656089 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W2977022142 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W2981820692 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W3087880188 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W3088005108 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W3111144944 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W3128929179 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W3142879207 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W3165129897 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W3210216280 @default.
• W3175998612 hasRelatedWork W574484677 @default.
• W3175998612 hasVolume "33" @default.
• W3175998612 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3175998612 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3175998612 magId "3175998612" @default.
• W3175998612 workType "article" @default.