Anatomical Sciences Education· 2026Q1
Do medical students recognize Terminologia Anatomica terms more accurately than eponyms? A randomized comparative assessment study
- 0citations
- Q1SCImago
- 2026year
Short summary
Second-year medical students correctly identified 3.87 more anatomical terms (out of 36) when presented with Terminologia Anatomica (TA) compared to eponymous terms in a randomized assessment.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Key points
- Second-year medical students scored significantly higher when tested on Terminologia Anatomica (TA) versus eponymous terms (14.72 vs. 10.85 out of 36 items).
- The TA group had 1.60 times higher odds of correct responses, a finding that remained significant even after excluding items potentially influenced by lexical cues.
- The study involved 216 students at Ankara Medipol University, randomized into TA and eponym assessment groups.
- Findings suggest prioritizing TA in anatomy teaching while allowing for the retention of familiar eponyms.
AI-generated from the title and abstract; the full text is not read.
Abstract
Abstract Despite longstanding debate over the use of Latin/Terminologia Anatomica (TA) and eponymous nomenclature in anatomy education, direct comparative evidence on students' recognition of these terminologies within the same curricular context remains limited. This study compared recognition of TA and eponymous terminology in second‐year medical students using a multiple‐choice anatomy test. In this single‐center, randomized, parallel‐group comparative assessment study, students at Ankara Medipol University Faculty of Medicine ( N = 216) were assigned by stratified block randomization to receive either the TA assessment form ( n = 108) or the eponym assessment form ( n = 108). For 35 of the 36 items the two forms shared identical question stems and differed only in the terminology of the response options. The primary analysis used generalized estimating equations to account for within‐student clustering. Students in the TA group achieved higher scores than those in the eponym group (14.72 ± 6.29 vs. 10.85 ± 4.43 of 36 items; mean difference 3.87, 95% CI 2.41 to 5.33). Item‐level analysis confirmed higher odds of correct responses in the TA group (OR 1.60, 95% CI 1.35 to 1.91, p < 0.001). After exclusion of 16 items considered as potentially susceptible to lexical cueing, the advantage for TA terminology was smaller but remained significant (OR 1.26, 95% CI 1.05 to 1.51, p = 0.013). These findings provide empirical support for emphasizing TA terminology in anatomy teaching, while indicating that selected established eponyms may be retained where clinical or cultural familiarity warrants.
The authors' abstract, as published at the source. Anatomical Sciences Education, 2026 · DOI ↗
Continue with a free account
Ask the paper: 3 free questions a day about this paper; save it, get its citation, new summaries every day for your field. Takeaways are Premium.
Continue free on the webSign in with Google or Apple; no card needed. You come back to this paper.
On your phone:
Field: Anatomy
AnatomyMedicine