Coronavirus disease‐2019 (Covid‐19) disrupted the in‐person teaching format of anatomy. To study changes in gross anatomy education that occurred during August–December, 2020 compared to before the pandemic, an online survey was distributed to anatomy educators. The 191 responses received were analyzed in total and by academic program, geographic region, and institution type. Cadaver use decreased overall (before: 74.1 ± 34.1%, during: 50.3 ± 43.0%, P < 0.0001), as well as across allopathic and osteopathic medicine, therapy, undergraduate, and veterinary programs (P < 0.05), but remained unchanged for other programs (P > 0.05). Cadaver use decreased internationally and in the US (P < 0.0001), at public and private (P < 0.0001) institutions, and among allopathic medical programs in Northeastern, Central, and Southern (P < 0.05), but not Western, US geographical regions. Laboratories during Covid‐19 were delivered through synchronous (59%), asynchronous (4%), or mixed (37%) formats (P < 0.0001) and utilized digital resources (47%), dissection (32%), and/or prosection (21%) (P < 0.0001). The practical laboratory examination persisted during Covid‐19 (P = 0.419); however, the setting and materials shifted to computer‐based (P < 0.0001) and image‐based (P < 0.0001), respectively. In‐person lecture decreased during Covid‐19 (before: 88%, during: 24%, P = 0.003). When anatomy digital resources were categorized, dissection media, interactive software, and open‐access content increased (P ≤ 0.008), with specific increases in BlueLink, Acland's Videos, and Complete Anatomy (P < 0.05). This study provided evidence of how gross anatomy educators continued to adapt their courses past the early stages of the pandemic.

Pregnane X receptor (PXR, NR1I2) is a member of the ligand-activated nuclear receptor superfamily. This receptor is promiscuous in its activation profile and is responsive to a broad array of both endobiotic and xenobiotic ligands. PXR is involved in pivotal cellular detoxification processes to include the regulation of genes that encode key drug-metabolizing cytochrome-P450 enzymes, oxidative stress response, as well as enzymes that drive steroid and bile acid metabolism. While PXR clearly has important regulatory roles in the liver and gastrointestinal tract, this nuclear receptor also has biological functions in breast tissue. In this review, we highlight current knowledge of PXR’s role in mammary tumor carcinogenesis. The elevated level of PXR expression in cancerous breast tissue suggests a likely interface between aberrant cell division and xeno-protection in cancer cells. Moreover, PXR itself exerts positive effect on the cell cycle, thereby predisposing tumor cells to unchecked proliferation. Activation of PXR also plays a key role in regulating apoptosis, as well as in acquired resistance to chemotherapeutic agents. The repressive role of PXR in regulating inflammatory mediators along with the existence of genetic polymorphisms within the sequence of the PXR gene may predispose individuals to developing breast cancer. Further investigations into the role that PXR plays in driving tumorigenesis are needed.

Background: Major branching patterns of the facial nerve have been extensively studied because damage to branches of the nerve is associated with complications ranging from weakness to paralysis. However, communicating branches of the facial nerve have received far less attention despite being hypothesized as a means of motor recovery following facial nerve injury. Objectives: The aim of this study was to characterize the frequency of communicating branches of the facial nerve to provide clarity on their anatomy and clinical correlations. Methods: Bilateral facial dissections were completed on cadaveric donors (n = 20) to characterize the frequency and location of communicating branches across terminal branches of the facial nerve. Statistical analyses were employed to analyze differences between the location of communications by side and whether the communicating branches were more likely to occur on the left or right side (P < 0.05). Results: Communicating branches were identified among all terminal branches of the facial nerve and their frequencies reported. The highest frequencies of communicating branches were identified between the buccal-to-marginal mandibular and zygomatic-to-buccal branches, at 67.5% (27 comm/40 hemifaces). The second highest frequency was identified between the temporal-to-zygomatic branches in 62.5% (25/40) of donors. The marginal mandibular-to-cervical branches had communicating branches at a frequency of 55% (22/40). Location or sidedness of communicating branches did not significantly differ. Conclusions: Our characterization more accurately defines generalizable areas in which communicating branches are located. These locations of branches, described in relation to nearby landmarks, are fundamental for clinical and surgical settings to improve procedural awareness.

We utilized the physical manipulation of cadaveric donors by students to evaluate learning outcomes in two undergraduate anatomy courses. Students (n = 176) were assigned as those whom ‘manipulated’ (n = 100) or ‘did not manipulate’ (n = 76) donors, and data were compared to performance on laboratory assessments. A Fisher’s exact test was conducted within individual and combined course populations to assess if the relationship between physical touch and receiving a passing grade is more than expected by chance. BIO 201 ‘manipulating’ students received a ‘C’ or better (n = 58) vs. 6 D, F, or Withdraw grades (DFW) on lab practicals as compared to those who did not manipulate (n = 33 DFW vs. 18 C or better) (p < 0.0001). BIO 221 ‘manipulating’ students (n = 34) received a ‘C’ or better vs. DFW grades (n = 2), while ‘non-manipulating’ students were able to earn outcomes of ‘C’ or better (n = 13 vs. 12 DFW). However, students involved in donor manipulation were more likely to receive a ‘C or better’ (p = 0.0002). Analysis of the data as a single cohort indicates non-manipulating students are 7.24 times more likely to earn a ‘DFW’ on lab practicals, demonstrating that students are better prepared for laboratory assessments when encouraged to manipulate anatomical structures.

Gross anatomy laboratories frequently utilize dissection or prosection formats within medical curricula. Practical examination scores are consistent across the formats, yet these examinations assessed larger anatomical structures. In contrast, a single report noted improved scores when prosection was used in the hand and foot regions, areas that are more difficult to dissect. The incorporation of prosected donors within “Head and Neck” laboratories provided an opportunity to further characterize the impact of prosection in a structurally complex area. Retrospective analysis of 21 Head and Neck practical examination questions was completed to compare scores among cohorts that utilized dissection exclusively or incorporated prosection. Mean scores of practical examination questions were significantly higher in the prosection cohort (84.27% ± 12.69) as compared with the dissection cohort (75.59% ± 12.27) (p < 0.001). Of the 12 questions that performed better in the prosection cohort (88.42% ± 8.21), 10 items mapped to deeper anatomical regions. By comparison, eight of nine questions in the dissection cohort outperformed (88.44% ± 3.34) the prosection cohort (71.74% ± 18.11), and mapped to anatomically superficial regions. Despite the mean score increase with positional location of the questions, this effect was not statically significant across cohorts (p = 1.000), suggesting that structure accessibility in anatomically complex regions impacts performance. Student feedback cited structure preservation (71.5%) and time savings (55.8%) as advantages to prosection; however, dissection was the perceived superior and preferred laboratory format (88.6%). These data support combined prosection and dissection formats for improving student recognition of deeply positioned structures and maximizing student success.