Declining use of neurological eponyms in cases where a non-eponymous alternative exists

Quantifying research on anatomical structures, a potential new metric for assessing clinical relevance

Human anatomy remains an integral part of medical education, and recent studies have documented an emerging consensus on the key anatomical learning objectives for physicians and other health professionals in training, both at the graduate and postgraduate levels. Despite this progress, less attention has been given to assessing the clinical relevance of individual anatomical structures, and which structures students should master to achieve these learning objectives. In this study we hypothesized that published research involving individual anatomical structures is largely driven by the clinical relevance of these structures, and that tabulating the number of such publications can provide an up-to-date, evolving metric of clinical relevance. To test this hypothesis, we developed a semi-automated search routine that uses the PubMed database to quantify the publication frequency of anatomical structures and compared that to a previous study that assessed the importance of structures of the head and neck using the Delphi method, a formal procedure of generating expert consensus. Using our new approach, we were able to rank the research intensity of 2182 anatomical structures included in Grant's Dissector, a widely used textbook for anatomical dissection. Furthermore, a sample of these PubMed-derived ranks had a highly significant, positive correlation with ranks derived from a consensus of experts. Similar results were obtained when PubMed searches were restricted to journals that focus on applying knowledge in a clinical setting. Our study provides a potential new tool for anatomical educators who are aligning their basic science curricula with the clinical knowledge expected of medical graduates.

NOMENs land: The place of eponyms in the anatomy classroom

The law of Non-Original Malappropriate Eponymous Nomenclature (NOMEN) states that no phenomenon is named after its discoverer. However, eponymous terms are rife in the anatomical and medical literature. In this viewpoint commentary, the authors discuss the history of anatomical eponyms, explain the additional cognitive load imposed by eponyms that can negatively impact student learning and explore the view that eponyms are "pale, male and stale" in the socially conscious 21st century. The authors probe two of the most common arguments used to keep eponyms in anatomy education: (1) clinicians use them because they are easy, and (2) eponyms remind us of anatomy's history. Educators, clinicians and students need to work together to progress this movement and bring a modern lens to this discussion. Based on the arguments presented in this commentary, the authors propose that eponyms should be removed from anatomy curricula, textbooks and have no place in the anatomy classroom.