The Roozbehi Integrated Spiral Anatomy Model (R-ISAM): a five-phase framework for fully integrated anatomical...

Fragmentation between anatomical sciences and clinical practice remains a major challenge in medical education. Traditional discipline-based instruction often produces disconnected knowledge structures, limiting students' ability to apply foundational concepts in clinical reasoning. The Roozbehi Integrated Spiral Anatomy Model (R-ISAM) was developed to address this gap through a structured five-phase framework integrating gross anatomy, histology, and embryology with progressive clinical application.

R-ISAM was implemented across musculoskeletal and gastrointestinal systems between 2020 and 2025. A mixed-methods evaluation was conducted using a validated 65-item questionnaire (Cronbach's α = 0.989) administered to 206 medical students across three educational stages. In addition, objective course scores (General Anatomy baseline, Musculoskeletal, Digestive, Neuroanatomy, and Neurophysiology) were collected from 350 to 353 students per course. Quantitative data were analysed using ANOVA and correlation analysis; qualitative data were analysed thematically.

Students reported high satisfaction across all domains (mean > 3.9/5). Clerkship students rated the model significantly higher than Basic Sciences and Physiopathology students (p < 0.001). Students reported perceived improvements in integrated assessment scores, clinical reasoning, and long-term retention. Objective course score analysis confirmed that baseline General Anatomy scores did not differ across stages (p = 0.172), supporting group comparability. Neuroanatomy scores (post-R-ISAM) showed no significant differences across stages (p = 0.312), with a similar non-significant pattern in the control course (Neurophysiology, p = 0.185). Qualitative findings highlighted enhanced clinical relevance, improved interdisciplinary integration, and increased confidence during early clinical encounters.

R-ISAM shows promise as a structured framework for integrating anatomical sciences with clinical practice. Students across all training stages reported positive perceptions, particularly regarding clinical relevance and interdisciplinary integration. Objective course score analysis confirmed baseline comparability. However, the current findings are based primarily on self-reported data and cross-sectional comparisons. Future research should incorporate objective outcome measures, longitudinal tracking, and multi-institutional validation to establish the model's effectiveness definitively.