↓ Skip to main content

Medical students' reactions to anatomic dissection and the phenomenon of cadaver naming

Overview of attention for article published in Anatomical Sciences Education, August 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • Among the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#49 of 933)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
5 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Readers on

mendeley
111 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Medical students' reactions to anatomic dissection and the phenomenon of cadaver naming
Published in
Anatomical Sciences Education, August 2013
DOI 10.1002/ase.1391
Pubmed ID
Authors

Austin D. Williams, Emily E. Greenwald, Rhonda L. Soricelli, Dennis M. DePace

Abstract

The teaching of gross anatomy has, for centuries, relied on the dissection of human cadavers, and this formative experience is known to evoke strong emotional responses. The authors hypothesized that the phenomenon of cadaver naming is a coping mechanism used by medical students and that it correlates with other attitudes about dissection and body donation. The authors developed a 33-question electronic survey to which 1,156 medical students at 12 medical schools in the United States voluntarily responded (November 2011-March 2012). They also surveyed course directors from each institution regarding their curricula and their observations of students' coping mechanisms. The majority of students (574, 67.8%) named their cadaver. Students most commonly cited the cadaver's age as the reason they chose a particular name for the cadaver. A minority of the students who did not name the cadaver reported finding the practice of naming disrespectful. Almost all students indicated that they would have liked to know more about their donor, particularly his or her medical history. Finally, students who knew the birth name of the donor used it less frequently than predicted. The authors found that the practice of naming cadavers is extremely prevalent among medical students and that inventive naming serves as a beneficial coping mechanism. The authors suggest that developing a method of providing students with more information about their cadaver while protecting the anonymity of the donor and family would be useful.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 111 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Turkey 1 <1%
Unknown 110 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 15 14%
Student > Bachelor 11 10%
Student > Master 11 10%
Researcher 11 10%
Lecturer 6 5%
Other 29 26%
Unknown 28 25%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 38 34%
Psychology 9 8%
Social Sciences 9 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 5 5%
Other 13 12%
Unknown 32 29%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 24. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 July 2023.
All research outputs
#1,904,366
of 31,983,049 outputs
Outputs from Anatomical Sciences Education
#49
of 933 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#14,073
of 231,176 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Anatomical Sciences Education
#2
of 11 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 31,983,049 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 933 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 231,176 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 11 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.