{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022933965994464216, 'fraction_numerical': 0.012257809410834321, 'mean_word_length': 5.081730769230769, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Radiology: an underutilized resource for undergraduate curricula

It appears quite paradoxical that although doctors encounter disease in a living human yet the familiarity of the future physicians with the human structure is grounded primarily in cadavers and artwork (Ganske et al. 2006). In the current medical curricula, time and resources to keep students abreast of an ever-increasing body of knowledge have become prized commodities (Gunderman et al. 2003). Arguably, these factors have lead to a diminutive role of anatomy in the medical curricula. The emphasis has been limited to its functional aspects only; even its raison d’etre has come under question (Ganske et al. 2006; Gunderman et al. 2003). The ‘eye of medicine’ is a resource with the potential to fill such gaps between basic sciences and clinical medicine. It can provide the future doctors with a succinct and true-to-life view of the normal as well as the disease processes in a noninvasive manner. (Ganske et al. 2006; Gunderman et al. 2003) The scope extends beyond visualization of structures; functional and molecular imaging can afford an exceptional correlation of physiological and biochemical processes with the anatomy. It is disconcerting that such a promising resource is yet to be utilized to an optimal extent. Although 80% of US medical schools have introduced radiological anatomy in their anatomy courses, with a large proportion of final evaluation comprising questions in radiological anatomy, the actual contribution of radiology to these teachings remains a mere 5%. Another ironical observation is that cadaveric crosssections, not CT or MRI images, are primarily used to teach cross-sectional anatomy. More so, future projections do not indicate an alteration in the preference of teaching methods for anatomy (Ganske et al. 2006). Regardless of the choice of specialty, almost every future doctor would utilize diagnostic imaging in patient care; be it an internist searching the reason for cough, a surgeon managing a case of acute abdomen or a pathologist seeking correlation for histopathological findings. It is high time to realize that integration of radiology into medical curricula, especially basic science courses, may not only provide medical students a practical acquaintance with the normal human processes but may also build an enduring foundation for the clinical years. We strongly urge the medical community to recognize that such endeavors can go a long way in the achievement of a well-rounded medical education.