<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.0 20120330//EN" "JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
  <front>
    <journal-meta />
    <article-meta>
      <title-group>
        <article-title>Does the Foundational Model of Anatomy ontology provide a knowledge base for learning and assessment in anatomy education?</article-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Melissa D. Clarkson</string-name>
          <email>mclarkson@uky.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author">
          <string-name>Mark E. Whipple</string-name>
          <email>mwhipple@uw.edu</email>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff0">0</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1">1</xref>
          <xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2">2</xref>
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff0">
          <label>0</label>
          <institution>A. The Foundational Model of Anatomy</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff1">
          <label>1</label>
          <institution>Dept. of Biomedical Informatics and Medical Education Dept. of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery University of Washington Seattle</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>WA</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2">
          <label>2</label>
          <institution>Division of Biomedical Informatics Institute for Biomedical Informatics University of Kentucky Lexington</institution>
          ,
          <addr-line>KY</addr-line>
          ,
          <country country="US">USA</country>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <pub-date>
        <year>2018</year>
      </pub-date>
      <fpage>7</fpage>
      <lpage>10</lpage>
      <abstract>
        <p>-Throughout the development of the Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA) ontology, one of the use cases put forth has been anatomy education. In this work, we examine which types of knowledge taught to anatomy students can be supported by the FMA knowledge base. We first categorize types of anatomical knowledge, then express these patterns in the form “Given ____, state ____”. Each of the 33 patterns was evaluated for whether this type of knowledge is compatible with the modeling and scope of the FMA.</p>
      </abstract>
      <kwd-group>
        <kwd>anatomy</kwd>
        <kwd>ontology</kwd>
        <kwd>knowledge representation</kwd>
        <kwd>medical education</kwd>
        <kwd>nursing education</kwd>
      </kwd-group>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
  <body>
    <sec id="sec-1">
      <title>I. INTRODUCTION</title>
      <p>Knowledge of human anatomy is fundamental to the fields
of health sciences. Software applications that support the
delivery of healthcare services and training of healthcare
providers often incorporate anatomical knowledge, but rarely in
ways that are computable and reusable. As researchers seek to
make software systems more intelligent, opportunities to draw
upon knowledge bases of anatomy will increase. As part of this
research agenda it is important to examine whether the needs of
specific applications can be supported by available knowledge
bases.</p>
      <p>This paper categorizes the types of knowledge relevant to
student learning in university-level courses in human anatomy,
and then examines which types are supported by the
Foundational Model of Anatomy (FMA) ontology.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-2">
      <title>II. BACKGROUND</title>
      <p>
        The FMA is both a theory for representing anatomy and a
computational artifact [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref1 ref2">1,2</xref>
        ]. It is currently modeled in OWL2
[
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref3">3</xref>
        ]. The majority of the content describes adult human canonical
anatomy, although recent work has incorporated developmental
anatomy. Because the FMA is a reference ontology, it has not
been developed for a specific type of application; rather, it is
      </p>
      <p>This work was supported in part by the National Library of Medicine of
the National Institutes of Health under award R21-LM012075. The content is
solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the
official views of the National Institutes of Health.</p>
      <p>
        The process by which health science students learn anatomy
has traditionally consisted of a combination of cadaveric
dissection, two-dimensional illustrations or photographs, and
text-based descriptions of anatomical relationships. Like most
areas of modern life, computer-based tools have increasingly
been integrated into anatomy education. These include
computer-based interactive atlases, such as the Visible Human
Project, as well as virtual anatomic models that allow students
to rotate and visualize structures and relationships in three
dimensions. These types of computer-based 3D visualizations
can successfully augment more traditional methods of
instruction, resulting in improved understanding and retention of
anatomic knowledge [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref7">7</xref>
        ]. As health science schools move
towards more streamlined basic science education with a greater
emphasis on student-directed learning, computer-based
anatomic teaching tools will play an increasing role in anatomy
education [
        <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref8">8</xref>
        ].
      </p>
      <p>If educational applications for learning anatomy make use of
common knowledge bases—instead of relying on
applicationspecific catalogues of knowledge—benefits will include greater
standardization of terminologies, less duplication of effort in
constructing knowledge artifacts, and easier implementation of
reasoning capabilities. This paper revisits the potential for the
FMA to serve as a knowledge base for education in gross human
anatomy, three decades after its conception.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-3">
      <title>III. METHODS</title>
      <sec id="sec-3-1">
        <title>A. Identifying knowledge relevant to anatomy education</title>
        <p>
          To capture types of knowledge relevant to learning human
anatomy in university-level courses, a variety of educational
resources were reviewed. Particular emphasis was given to
structured information presented as tables in atlases and review
guides [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref10 ref11">9–11</xref>
          ], as well as the content of practice questions [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12 ref13 ref14">12–
14</xref>
          ]. Content was examined to identify minimal units of
information and general categories of knowledge.
        </p>
        <p>
          Consider these examples:
• A table describing lymph node groups that provides
information about location, afferent lymphatic structures,
efferent lymphatic structures, and regions of the body
drained (from [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref11">11</xref>
          ]).
• A review question, “The ___ returns blood [to the heart]
from body regions above the diaphragm” (from [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref12">12</xref>
          ]).
Although these examples describe different anatomical systems,
they are similar in that they both refer to the connectivity and
spatial location of structures.
        </p>
        <p>During the process of identifying units of information and
developing categories, a category was created if two or more
examples of a pattern of knowledge were found within the
sampled content. These categories were expressed as assessment
questions using patterns in the form “Given ____, state ____” in
order to make explicit the prompt and the knowledge to be
recalled. An example of a pattern is “Given a structure, state its
parts”.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-3-2">
        <title>B. Comparing types of assessment questions to the content and structure of the FMA</title>
        <p>Each category of assessment questions was compared with
the modeling and scope of the FMA. Effort was directed toward
determining whether the type of knowledge in the assessment
questions could be retrieved from the FMA, not determining
whether the FMA currently contains the content necessary to
answer specific questions.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-4">
      <title>IV. RESULTS</title>
      <p>Five broad categories of anatomical knowledge were
identified (see Table 1). Questions were organized into 17
subcategories and expressed through a total of 28 patterns. Table
1 also provides examples of specific questions for each pattern
and an assessment of whether the FMA could serve as a source
for each type of knowledge.</p>
      <p>This analysis shows that the FMA is well-suited to
representing knowledge about synonyms of terms, classification
of anatomical structures, parts of structures, and connectivity
between structures. As expected, the FMA is not a suitable
knowledge base for questions about the qualities of anatomical
structures (such as morphology or variation within the
population).</p>
      <p>For the types of knowledge that the FMA can support,
several factors may complicate efforts to directly apply the FMA
to educational applications:</p>
      <sec id="sec-4-1">
        <title>A. High granularity of the FMA</title>
        <p>Part relationships within the FMA tend to be much more
granular than those taught in anatomy courses. For example,
Figure 1 (top) shows a question about a part of the urinary
bladder. In the FMA, this information traverses three part
relationships.</p>
        <p>Implications: This high level of granularity in the FMA is
appropriate for advanced anatomy courses, but may not be a
good fit for learners in basic anatomy courses. But just as
advanced learners should be able to understand and reason over
high-granularity representations to answer low-granularity
questions, it is possible that some types of high-granularity
representations in the FMA can be converted to low-granularity
representations.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-2">
        <title>B. High specificity of the FMA</title>
        <p>Educational materials may focus on general concepts
(“ventral and dorsal roots merge to form a spinal nerve”), while
the FMA tends to represent knowledge with greater specificity
(such as specific ventral and dorsal roots).</p>
        <p>Implications: The class hierarchy may provide an avenue for
representing knowledge applied to many individual structures.
(For example, “Muscle organ” has regional part “Distal
tendon”.) However, because properties of class are inherited by
all its subclasses, there is a danger that a general anatomical
principle will not be true for every subclass.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-3">
        <title>C. Formal and explicit representation of the FMA</title>
        <p>Educational materials often make use of assumptions and
unwritten knowledge. Making this knowledge explicit, as
required by the FMA, can introduce an expected level of
complexity. As show in Figure 1 (bottom), answering a question
about the passage of air through the nose and into the pharynx
using the FMA requires that the nasal cavity is explicitly
recognized as a part of the nose. A medical student has tacit
knowledge that movement of air through the respiratory system
(at the level of gross anatomy) takes place within tubes and
cavities, and would immedicately recognize that this question
refers to air-filled spaces—even if he or she did not conceive of
“nasal cavity” as an anatomical structure.</p>
        <p>Implications: Directly translating the FMA content into
educational contexts is largely inappropriate because it risks
directing students’ attention toward modeling details of the
FMA, rather than on building upon their existing understanding
of anatomy. However, it may be appropriate to use explicit FMA
representations as a supplement to less-detailed representations
as a way to help students construct and deepen their knowledge
of anatomy.</p>
      </sec>
      <sec id="sec-4-4">
        <title>D. Translating to the language of the FMA</title>
        <p>
          As noted in previous work to test the FMA against anatomy
examination questions [
          <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="ref15">15</xref>
          ], common English-language
expressions and terms often need to be translated by someone
familiar with the FMA. An example is shown in Figure 1 (top),
where the phrase “is located in” translates to “is regional part of”
and “is constitutional part of”.
        </p>
        <p>Implications: The precision of relationships used in the FMA
may be helpful in stimulating students to think more deeply</p>
        <p>CATEGORIES OF ASSESSMENT QUESTIONS FOR ANATOMICAL KNOWLEDGE
Category of assessment question
Category 1: Representations and real anatomy
Understanding visual and semantic representations and their relation to real anatomy
1a. Cadaver “pin test”
Given a structure marked within a cadaver, state the corresponding anatomical term.
1b. Translating between visual representations and verbal representations
Given a visual representation of a structure, state the corresponding anatomical term.
[And reverse: Given an anatomical term, identify the structure in a visual representation.]
1c. The language of anatomy
Given a directional term, state the definition. [And reverse.]
• Superficial: toward the surface
• Distal: away from the center
Given a plane, state the definition. [And reverse.]
• Median: separates right lateral and left lateral regions at midline
• Transverse: separates superior and inferior regions
Given an anatomical root word, state the definition. [And reverse.]
• Brachial: of the arm
• Orbital: of the eye
Given a structure, state a synonym.</p>
        <p>• Pharyngotympanic tube: Eustachian tube
• Nostril: naris
Suitable for FMA
No
No
No
No
No
Yes, synonyms are provided.</p>
        <p>Category 2: Classification
Understanding how categories are used to describe anatomy, as well as characteristics of members of categories
2a. General vs. specific
Given a specific structure, state the type of structure to which it belongs.</p>
        <p>• Elbow joint: synovial joint
• Frontal bone: flat bone
• Lateral meniscus: cartilage
Given a type of structure and a defining characteristic, state the specific structure.</p>
        <p>• Nerve that innervates the foot and leg: sciatic nerve
• Fluid in the lymphatic system: lymph
• Joint that is the largest and most complex in the body: knee joint
2b. Cardinality
Given a type of structure, state how many are present in the (canonical) body.</p>
        <p>• Permanent teeth: 32
• Major calyces per kidney: 2–3
• Layers of meninges surrounding brain and spinal cord: 3
Category 3: Canonical structure
Understanding the location, composition, and demarcation of structures
3a. Whole-part relationships
Given a structure, state its parts.</p>
        <p>• Mandible: left ramus, right ramus, body of mandible
• Lymph node: cortex, medulla
• Cortex of lymph node: superficial cortex, paracortex
Given a region of a structure, state the indicated part of that structure.</p>
        <p>• Lowest portion of the brainstem: medulla oblongata
• Triangular divisions of the medulla of the kidney: renal pyramids
Yes. Available in the class hierarchy
No, unless encoded through class hierarchy or
other relationships.</p>
        <p>No, although some information may be implied
through the class hierarchy.</p>
        <p>Yes. Available in regional and constitutional part
hierarchies.</p>
        <p>No, although some information may be available
in definitions.
Given a structure, state the types of tissues that compose it.</p>
        <p>• Skin: epidermis, dermis
• Nasal cartilage: hyaline cartilage
3b. Regional location of structure
Given type of structure and region of the body, state the specific structures of that region. [And reverse.]
• Muscles of the neck: longus capitis, longus colli, rectus capitis anterior, …
• Foramen of the skull: right/left mental foramen, right/left infraorbital foramen, …
• Lymph node groups of head and neck: submental, submandibular, occipital, …
3c. Spatial relationships among structures
Given a structure and a spatial relation, state the associated structure(s).</p>
        <p>• Spinal cord passes through: foramen magnum
• Femoral triangle contains: femoral vessels, femoral nerve, lymph nodes
• Subarachnoid space contains: cerebrospinal fluid
• Femoral artery bisects: femoral triangle
• Serous pericardium surrounds: heart
• Annular ligament surrounds: radial head
• Deltopectoral triangle has superior boundary: deltoid
• Ribcage is superficial to: lungs
Given two structures, state the structure positioned between them. [And reverse.]
• Between the visceral and parietal layers of the peritoneum: peritoneal cavity
• Between the lungs, immediately anterior to the heart: thymus
• Dividing the right and left sides of the nasal cavity: nasal septum
Given a structure (artery, vein, or nerve), state the structures it encounters along its course.</p>
        <p>• Internal iliac artery: passes over pelvic brim and descends into pelvic cavity
3d. Connectivity between structures
Given a structure and type of connectivity, state the associated structure(s).</p>
        <p>• Scapula articulates with: clavicle, humerus
• Via the coronal suture, the frontal bone articulates with: right/left parietal bones
• Carpometacarpal joint of thumb connects: trapezium and metacarpal of thumb
• Anconeus has origin: lateral epicondyle
• Anconeus has insertion: lateral side of olecranon, upper ulna
• Anconeus has innervation: radial nerve
• Right subclavian trunk drains into: right lymphatic duct
• Occipital artery has origin (or source): external carotid
Given two or more structures, state the structure they join or merge to form.</p>
        <p>• Ventral and dorsal roots merge to form: spinal nerves
Given a structure, state the two or more structures it branches, bifurcates, or divides into.</p>
        <p>• After exiting the vertebral column, each spinal nerve divides into: dorsal ramus, ventral ramus,
meningeal branch, communicating rami
• Trachea bifurcates into: right and left main bronchi
3e. Clinical regions and landmarks (points, lines, borders)
Given a region or structure, state the associated clinical regions.</p>
        <p>• Abdomen: epigastrium, umbilical region, suprapubic region, right and left lumbar regions …
Given a structure, state the associated landmarks. [And reverse.]
• Points of the skull: right and left euryon, right and left coronale, right and left auriculare, …
• T2 (second thoracic vertebra): superior border of scapula
3f. Morphology
Given a structure, describe its form.</p>
        <p>• Duodenum: c-shaped part of the small intestine
• Vertebral foramen of cervical vertebra: triangular space
• Mandibular alveoli: sockets (for teeth)
Yes. Available in the constitutional part
hierarchies.</p>
        <p>Yes, if a region has been represented. For
example, classes such as “Musculature of hand”
have members that are individual muscles.</p>
        <p>Most, using relationships such as surrounds,
lateral to, contains.</p>
        <p>No
No
Yes, using relationships such as articulates with,
has origin, has insertion, drains into.</p>
        <p>An alternative modeling scheme using branches
and tributaries (as regional parts) is employed.</p>
        <p>An alternative modeling scheme using branches
and tributaries (as regional parts) is employed.</p>
        <p>Yes, if modeled as regional parts.</p>
        <p>Some. For example, the class hierarchy contains
subclasses of “Anatomical point of skull”. Other
landmarks may be captured using the scheme 3D
structures are bounded by 2D surfaces, bounded
by 1D lines, bounded by 0D points.</p>
        <p>No, unless available in definition.
Category 4: Variation in structure
Understanding variations in human anatomy
4a. Sexual dimorphism
Given a structure, describe the morphological differences between female and male structures.
• Sacrum: female sacra tend to be wider, shorter, and less curved than male sacra
• Pelvic inlet: circular in females, heart-shaped in males
4b. Anatomical variation
Given a structure, describe common variations.</p>
        <p>• Branches from the aortic arch: in the most common variant, the left common carotid artery arises
from the brachiocephalic trunk (instead of the aortic arch itself)
• Sternalis: a muscle parallel to margin of the sternum, present in less than 10% of population
Category 5: Developmental anatomy
Understanding structural changes during gestation and early childhood
5a. Development of structures
Given a structure, state the structure(s) it develops into or becomes part of. [And reverse.]
• Urogenital ridge: pronephros, mesonephros, metanephros
• Neural tube: brain, spinal cord
5b. Germ layer origins
Given a structure, state the germ layer it developed from.</p>
        <p>• Kidney: intermediate mesoderm
• Epithelium of gastrointestinal track: endoderm
5c. Developmental homologues in males and females
Given a (male/female) structure, state the developmentally homologous (female/male) structure.
• Ovary: testis
• Cowper’s gland: Bartholin’s gland
• Three primary brain vesicles: 4th week
• Implantation: about 7 days
5d. Timing of developmental events
Given a structure, state the stage (or time interval) at which it is present. [And reverse.]
No
No
created.</p>
        <p>No
Some. The relationships derives, matures into,
and transforms into have been used in recent
work.</p>
        <p>Some. The relationship germ origin has been
Some. The relationship developmental stage of
has been used in recent work
about anatomical relationships, but may not be directly relevant
to the needs of students in basic anatomy courses.</p>
      </sec>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-5">
      <title>V. CONCLUSION</title>
      <p>This work helps to make explicit ways in which the FMA
knowledge base could (and could not) support learning within a
university-level anatomy course. The work will assist
developers of educational applications in identifying types of
anatomical knowledge, as well as recognizing opportunities for
making use of a knowledge base such as the FMA.</p>
    </sec>
    <sec id="sec-6">
      <title>ACKNOWLEDGMENT</title>
      <p>Many thanks to James Brinkley and José (Onard) Mejino of
the Structural Informatics Group at the University of
Washington for supporting M.D.C.’s earlier work with the
FMA. We also thank Kate Mulligan for discussions concerning
anatomy education.</p>
    </sec>
  </body>
  <back>
    <ref-list>
      <ref id="ref1">
        <mixed-citation>
          [1]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Rosse</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.L.V.</given-names>
            <surname>Mejino</surname>
          </string-name>
          <article-title>Jr. “The Foundational Model of Anatomy ontology,” In: Anatomy ontologies for bioinformatics: Principles and practice</article-title>
          . London: Springer;
          <year>2008</year>
          . p.
          <fpage>59</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>117</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref2">
        <mixed-citation>
          [2]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Rosse</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.L.V.</given-names>
            <surname>Mejino</surname>
          </string-name>
          Jr.
          <article-title>“A reference ontology for biomedical informatics: The Foundational Model of Anatomy</article-title>
          ,”
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J Biomed</given-names>
            <surname>Inform</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <year>2003</year>
          ;
          <volume>36</volume>
          (
          <issue>6</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>478</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>500</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref3">
        <mixed-citation>
          [3]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.T.</given-names>
            <surname>Detwiler</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.L.V.</given-names>
            <surname>Mejino</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.F.</given-names>
            <surname>Brinkley</surname>
          </string-name>
          . “
          <article-title>From frames to OWL2: Converting the Foundational Model of Anatomy,”</article-title>
          <source>Artif Intell Med</source>
          .
          <year>2016</year>
          ;
          <volume>69</volume>
          :
          <fpage>12</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>21</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref4">
        <mixed-citation>
          [4]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.F.</given-names>
            <surname>Brinkley</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.S.</given-names>
            <surname>Prothero</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.W.</given-names>
            <surname>Prothero</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Rosse</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>“A framework for the design of a knowledge-based systems in structural biology</article-title>
          .”
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care</source>
          .
          <year>1989</year>
          . p.
          <fpage>61</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>5</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref5">
        <mixed-citation>
          [5]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.</given-names>
            <surname>Eno</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.W.</given-names>
            <surname>Sundsten</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.F.</given-names>
            <surname>Brinkley</surname>
          </string-name>
          . “
          <article-title>A multimedia Anatomy Browser incorporating a knowledge base and 3D images</article-title>
          .”
          <source>In: Proceedings of the 15th Annual Annual Symposium on Computer Application in Medical Care</source>
          .
          <year>1991</year>
          . p.
          <fpage>727</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>731</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref6">
        <mixed-citation>
          [6]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>C.</given-names>
            <surname>Rosse</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.L.</given-names>
            <surname>Mejino</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>B.R.</given-names>
            <surname>Modayur</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.</given-names>
            <surname>Jakobovits</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.P.</given-names>
            <surname>Hinshaw</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.F.</given-names>
            <surname>Brinkley</surname>
          </string-name>
          . “
          <article-title>Motivation and organizational principles for anatomical knowledge representation: The Digital Anatomist symbolic knowledge base,” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association</article-title>
          .
          <source>Jan</source>
          <year>1998</year>
          ;
          <volume>5</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>17</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>40</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref7">
        <mixed-citation>
          [7]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>D.C.</given-names>
            <surname>Peterson</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.S.A.</given-names>
            <surname>Mlynarczyk</surname>
          </string-name>
          . “
          <article-title>Analysis of traditional versus threedimensional augmented curriculum on anatomical learning outcome measures: Efficacy of 3D Teaching Technologies,”</article-title>
          <source>Anatomical Sciences Education. Nov</source>
          <year>2016</year>
          ;
          <volume>9</volume>
          (
          <issue>6</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>529</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>36</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref8">
        <mixed-citation>
          [8] [9]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.B.</given-names>
            <surname>Trelease</surname>
          </string-name>
          . “
          <article-title>From chalkboard, slides, and paper to e-learning: How computing technologies have transformed anatomical sciences education,”</article-title>
          <source>Anatomical Sciences Education. Nov</source>
          <year>2016</year>
          ;
          <volume>9</volume>
          (
          <issue>6</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>583</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>602</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref9">
        <mixed-citation>
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.H.</given-names>
            <surname>Whitaker</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <source>Instant Anatomy. 4th edition</source>
          . Wiley-Blackwell;
          <year>2010</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref10">
        <mixed-citation>
          [10]
          <string-name>
            <surname>A.M.R. Agur</surname>
            ,
            <given-names>A.F.</given-names>
          </string-name>
          <string-name>
            <surname>Dalley</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Grant's Atlas of Anatomy. 12th edition</article-title>
          . Lippincott Wiliams &amp; Wilkins;
          <year>2009</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref11">
        <mixed-citation>
          [11] Department of Neurobiology and Developmental Sciences, University of Arkansas for
          <source>Medical Sciences. Anatomy Tables</source>
          .
          <year>2009</year>
          . http://anatomy.uams.edu/medcharts.html
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref12">
        <mixed-citation>
          [12]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>G.A.</given-names>
            <surname>Thibodeau</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>K.T.</given-names>
            <surname>Patton</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <article-title>Study and review guide to accompany Anatomy &amp; Physiology. 6th edition</article-title>
          . Mosby;
          <year>2007</year>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref13">
        <mixed-citation>
          [13]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.M.</given-names>
            <surname>Anson</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <fpage>3600</fpage>
          -Plus
          <source>Review Questions for Anatomy &amp; Physiology</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>1</volume>
          , 5th edition.
          <year>2011</year>
          . http://ansonbiology.info/A&amp;P_Review_ Question_e-Books/3600+_Review_Questions_
          <fpage>Volume1</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>5e</lpage>
          .pdf
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref14">
        <mixed-citation>
          [14]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>R.M.</given-names>
            <surname>Anson</surname>
          </string-name>
          .
          <fpage>3600</fpage>
          -Plus
          <source>Review Questions for Anatomy &amp; Physiology</source>
          , Vol.
          <volume>2</volume>
          , 5th edition.
          <year>2015</year>
          . http://ansonbiology.info/A&amp;P_Review_ Question_e-Books/3600+_Review_Questions_Volume_
          <fpage>2</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>5e</lpage>
          .pdf
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
      <ref id="ref15">
        <mixed-citation>
          [15]
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.G.</given-names>
            <surname>Shapiro</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>E.</given-names>
            <surname>Chung</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>L.T.</given-names>
            <surname>Detwiler</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.L.V.</given-names>
            <surname>Mejino</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>A.V.</given-names>
            <surname>Agoncillo</surname>
          </string-name>
          ,
          <string-name>
            <given-names>J.F.</given-names>
            <surname>Brinkley</surname>
          </string-name>
          , et al. “
          <article-title>Processes and problems in the formative evaluation of an interface to the Foundational Model of Anatomy knowledge base</article-title>
          ,
          <source>” Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association</source>
          .
          <year>2005</year>
          ;
          <volume>12</volume>
          (
          <issue>1</issue>
          ):
          <fpage>35</fpage>
          -
          <lpage>46</lpage>
          .
        </mixed-citation>
      </ref>
    </ref-list>
  </back>
</article>