D’Antoni, Anthony V.

ABSTRACT The term “clinical anatomy” is widely used in education and research, yet its conceptual boundaries continue to be interpreted in various ways. Prior consensus‐based efforts have emphasized integration, collaboration, and clinical relevance as central features of the field and have provided an important foundation for interdisciplinary engagement. At the same time, ongoing changes in academic structure, medical education, and interdisciplinary biomedical science raise important questions regarding how clinical anatomy can sustain its scientific identity and long‐term relevance. Building upon prior discussions, this article argues that the continued maturation of clinical anatomy depends on the integration of conceptual frameworks with the sustained production of rigorous, reproducible, and clinically meaningful scholarly contributions. Historical and contemporary examples alike demonstrate that the influence of clinical anatomy has been shaped through contributions that directly advanced clinical science and practice. Accordingly, continued emphasis on methodological rigor, reproducibility, clinically meaningful contribution, and educational accountability may be essential to the field's future development and relevance.

ABSTRACT At the 42nd Annual Meeting of the American Association of Clinical Anatomists (AACA) in Bellevue, Washington, June 2025, two inaugural events—the Clinical Anatomy Fireside Chat (CAFC) and the Clinical Anatomy Symposium: Head and Neck 2025 (CAS)—fostered rich dialogue on the evolving role and operational definition of clinical anatomy. Experts from various clinical and anatomical disciplines explored the meaning of clinical anatomy, highlighting the absence of a universal definition despite its frequent use in education and research. Through these interdisciplinary discussions, a consensus emerged: clinical anatomy is not defined solely by the possession of clinical credentials but by the integration of anatomical knowledge and clinical relevance, achieved most effectively through collaboration. Clinical anatomy education and research require different depths of clinical knowledge depending on the audience and objective, and meaningful collaboration can bridge gaps in expertise. The symposium further illustrated that high‐quality clinical anatomy emerges from mutual respect and reciprocal insight between clinicians and anatomists. This article presents a consensus statement developed by AACA representatives and invited speakers, affirming that collaboration is not only foundational to the practice of clinical anatomy but also fundamental to its definition. These conclusions aim to guide future educational models, research strategies, and interdisciplinary partnerships in the field of clinical anatomy.

ABSTRACT Determining an appropriate sample size in human cadaveric studies remains a long‐standing and unresolved challenge. Unlike other basic science fields, anatomical research is constrained by factors such as limited human donor availability, cultural considerations, and ethical restrictions. Despite these limitations, researchers are often asked to justify sample sizes, yet no standardized guidelines currently exist. To quantitatively assess sample sizes in recent human cadaveric studies and propose evidence‐based recommendations for future research, a PubMed search was conducted on February 26, 2024, using the term human cadaveric study . The articles published in 2023 and 2024 were screened, yielding 770 eligible studies. Data extracted included the total sample size, number of classified groups, and journal impact factor (IF). Descriptive statistics, linear regression, and correlation analyses were performed. Continuous variables were summarized using medians and interquartile ranges (IQR). The median sample size was 11.5 (IQR: 7–20), and 47.9% of studies used 10 or fewer specimens. The median number of classified groups was 3 (IQR: 2–4). Linear regression showed that studies dividing specimens into 2–6 groups often failed to meet the recommended sample size per group based on regression modeling. No significant correlation was found between sample size and journal IF ( r = −0.062, p = 0.115). Most cadaveric studies rely on small sample sizes due to inherent constraints, yet many still attempt a subgroup analysis without sufficient statistical power. Although flexibility is essential in anatomical research, we recommend a minimum total sample size of 10 for basic studies and at least five samples per group for those involving classification. Cadaveric sample size alone does not predict journal impact, highlighting the importance of methodological rigor over quantity.