Objective: Virtual microscopy offers a wide range of academic material and is a crucial visual component of pathology training. The gold standard of pathology, conventional microscopy, is replaced by this technique. The slides are scanned to create digital images and stored online for use in virtual microscopy. It was first described in 1985, and since 2000, it has undergone a revolution. In this study, how virtual microscopy affected medical school students' pathology training was sought to determine.
Material and methods: The study involved 3rd-year medical students from ………..university medical school who took the pathology practice final exam at the conclusion of the academic year. Due to scanning by the Novelsis firm, 102 slides from the education archive were selected and virtualized. Among them, forty slides representing lesions and organs from ten different organs were chosen. The students who took the exam the following day were shown the slides. Students were divided into Groups A, and B , and each student was given the opportunity to study both 20 virtual and 20 microscope slides. The Group B students examined the slides that half of the class studied via a virtual microscope in order to create a comparison. For the final exam held the next day, the students were randomly divided into 4 groups and each group was asked questions about 10 slides from 10 different systems. These questions were about the descriptive characteristics of the organs and lesions that are examined.
Results: Eighty-nine students in total (52/58.4% men, 37/41.6% women) took part in the survey. Exam groups reported that there was no difference in exam scores (chi-square p=0.158). The mean exam scores for all students was found to be 17.2±7 points (range: 5 to 40 points).The mean exam scores of the students who examined the slides using the light , and virtual microscopy approaches were 8.7±4.6,and 8.6±4.1points, respectively. Success rates were comparable whether the students examined the slides through a light or virtual microscopy approach. Yet when the results were grouped by gender, female students had higher overall (p=0.005) and light microscopy scores (p=0.001). When the groups were investigated separately, the exam scores were comparable in terms of major system disorders based on learning style without any statistical significance between groups. However, while group A students who participated in light microscopy training in bone and soft tissue pathology had a mean score of 3±1.5 points, virtual learners had a mean score of 1.2±1.7 points, with a statistically significant intergroup difference according to the Mann- Whitney U test (p=0.027).
Discussion
Virtual microscopy is a crucial component of medical students' pathology education. Particularly in undergraduate education, it is crucial for the understanding of rare cases and standardization of pathology education.
But as our study's findings on the pathology of bone and soft tissues showed, conventional light microscopy is still essential for understanding the pathology of some systems. Moreover, one's gender may affect a student's capacity for virtual learning. Understanding the distinction between genders in terms of learning capacity may aid in providing students a better education.