Transforming Anatomy
2017
- 194Usage
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Metrics Details
- Usage194
- Downloads144
- Abstract Views50
Poster Description
Abstract: Transforming AnatomyStudying historic books allows people to witness the transformation of the world right before their very eyes. The Bruxellensis Icones Anatomicae[1] by Andreas Vesalius is a vital piece of evidence in the movement from a more rudimentary understanding of the human body into the more complex and accurate development of modern anatomy. Vesalius’ research worked to both refute and confirm findings of his predecessor, the great historical Greek philosopher, Galen of Pergamon (129-216 AD). Before Vesalius documented his work, Galen was considered the main source of expertise on the subject of anatomy. Galen's authority stood firm throughout the Middle Ages and early Renaissance, and it was only with the publication of Vesalius' anatomical textbooks in the sixteenth century that a new and more empirical understanding of human anatomy became standard in western medicine. Such was Vesalius' importance to this relatively new field of scientific investigation that it was not until the 1850s that it was supplanted in medical schools by Henry Gray and Henry Vandyke Carter in the famed Gray’s Anatomy[2]. A comparison of the anatomical imagery and understanding represented by Galen, Vesalius, and Gray and Carter reveals the transformation of medicine, particularly anatomy, from antiquity to modernity. This essay aims to compare and contrast these three important anatomies and discuss how the creation of restrikes, facsimiles, and more widely accessible texts allows people today to physically witness this transformation of society’s views over time.[1] Vesalius, Andreas, Jan Stephan van Calcar, and Frieda Thiersch. 1934. Andreae Vesalii Bruxellensis Icones Anatomicae.[2] Drake, Richard L., Wayne Vogl, Adam W. M. Mitchell, and Henry Gray. 2005. Gray's anatomy for students. Philadelphia: Elsevier/Churchill Livingstone.
Bibliographic Details
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know