Resilience of the Cadaver in the Digital Age: Anatomy Learning tool Preferences among Medical Undergraduates from a South Asian Country

Objective: Digital learning technologies have transformed anatomy education, sparking debate about the continued role of cadaveric dissection and other traditional methods. This study aimed to characterize medical student preferences for traditional versus digital anatomy learning tools across a spectrum of 16 tools, to identify distinct learning style profiles, and to test whether digital tool adoption reduces cadaver preference in a Sri Lankan undergraduate cohort. Methods: A cross-sectional survey was administered to 193 medical students from two Sri Lankan universities during the 2025–2026 academic year. Participants reported tool usage (binary) and preferences (Likert scale, 1–5). Analysis included descriptive statistics, K-means clustering (k=4, validated by silhouette analysis), logistic and linear regression, Random Forest feature importance, and 10 hypothesis tests across 5 hypotheses. Results: Of 193 students surveyed, 173 (89.6%) provided complete data. Four learning style clusters emerged: Balanced Learners (n=70, 40.5%), Digital Enthusiasts (n=53, 30.6%), Traditionalists (n=39, 22.5%), and Minimalists (n=11, 6.4%). Near-universal adoption was observed for YouTube (97.7%), 3D anatomy applications (94.2%), cadaver dissection (97.7%), and bone specimens (97.7%). Students used a mean of 8.6 tools (range 3-15). No hypothesis test supported a negative relationship between digital tool usage and cadaver preference (0/5 tests significant; all p>0.10). Conclusion: Sri Lankan medical students naturally practice blended learning, combining traditional and digital tools without institutional mandate. Digital adoption does not threaten cadaver use; paradoxically, heavy digital users showed higher traditional preference. Educational institutions should invest in both traditional infrastructure and digital resources to accommodate four distinct learning styles, and should abandon the false dichotomy between traditional and digital approaches.