Number
825
Name
Neurophobia Research: 30 Years of Identical Solutions to Identical Problems
Date & Time
Sunday, June 7, 2026, 5:30 PM - 7:00 PM
Location Name
Oglethorpe Ballroom
Speakers
Authors
Kesava Mandalaneni, Oakland University William Beaumont School of Medicine
Priyanka Venkatapathappa, Private Practice and Educational Consulting
Appaji Rayi, Charleston Area Medical Center
Presentation Topic(s)
Technology and Innovation
Description
PURPOSE Neurophobia, the fear of clinical neuroscience and neurology
among medical students, was first termed in 1994. It remains a prevalent
issue in medical education despite three decades of research. Neurophobia
intervention studies have overlooked optimal utilization of high-quality
neuroanatomic digital atlases and LLMs having only engaged with them
superficially. In this study, we analyzed two distinct research eras to
identify recurring problem-solution patterns in Neurophobia discourse and
reveal opportunities for interventions with emerging technologies.
METHODS All PubMed-indexed abstracts retrieved with the term
"Neurophobia" were divided into pre - LLM (1994 - November 2022,
n=83) and post - LLM eras (November 30, 2022 - November 2025, n=48). Each
abstract was tagged for drivers attributed to Neurophobia, solutions
proposed, and technology engagement. Solution novelty scores were assigned
(0=Traditional, 1=Enhanced, 2=Technology aided, 3=AI) to quantify innovation
patterns.
RESULTS Analysis shows identical barriers across 30 years of Neurophobia
research, viz., complex neuroanatomy, insufficient clinical exposure, poor
teaching quality, and perceived clinical examination complexity. Proposed
solutions showed remarkable consistency and included CBT/PBL/TBL approaches
that dominated both eras. Strikingly, even post 2022, solution novelty scores
showed a persistent reliance on traditional approaches, with only 2 studies
(4.2%) mentioning AI technologies and 1 study (2.1%) referencing virtual
reality, despite the widespread availability of these tools.
CONCLUSION For 30 years, Neurophobia research has identified identical
barriers to neurology learning while prescribing the same four interventions:
increased bedside teaching, enhanced basic science-clinical integration,
expanded case-based learning, and extended curriculum time. While advanced AI
and interactive neuroanatomical platforms have become ubiquitous and
promising, the lack of rigorous evaluation to integrate these technologies as
possible interventions represents a profound missed opportunity that warrants
immediate study and course correction.
among medical students, was first termed in 1994. It remains a prevalent
issue in medical education despite three decades of research. Neurophobia
intervention studies have overlooked optimal utilization of high-quality
neuroanatomic digital atlases and LLMs having only engaged with them
superficially. In this study, we analyzed two distinct research eras to
identify recurring problem-solution patterns in Neurophobia discourse and
reveal opportunities for interventions with emerging technologies.
METHODS All PubMed-indexed abstracts retrieved with the term
"Neurophobia" were divided into pre - LLM (1994 - November 2022,
n=83) and post - LLM eras (November 30, 2022 - November 2025, n=48). Each
abstract was tagged for drivers attributed to Neurophobia, solutions
proposed, and technology engagement. Solution novelty scores were assigned
(0=Traditional, 1=Enhanced, 2=Technology aided, 3=AI) to quantify innovation
patterns.
RESULTS Analysis shows identical barriers across 30 years of Neurophobia
research, viz., complex neuroanatomy, insufficient clinical exposure, poor
teaching quality, and perceived clinical examination complexity. Proposed
solutions showed remarkable consistency and included CBT/PBL/TBL approaches
that dominated both eras. Strikingly, even post 2022, solution novelty scores
showed a persistent reliance on traditional approaches, with only 2 studies
(4.2%) mentioning AI technologies and 1 study (2.1%) referencing virtual
reality, despite the widespread availability of these tools.
CONCLUSION For 30 years, Neurophobia research has identified identical
barriers to neurology learning while prescribing the same four interventions:
increased bedside teaching, enhanced basic science-clinical integration,
expanded case-based learning, and extended curriculum time. While advanced AI
and interactive neuroanatomical platforms have become ubiquitous and
promising, the lack of rigorous evaluation to integrate these technologies as
possible interventions represents a profound missed opportunity that warrants
immediate study and course correction.