Regulation 61-64 x-rays (title B)

Except as otherwise specifically provided, this regulation applies to all persons who receive, possess, use, transfer, own, or acquire any x-ray producing machine. The provisions of this regulation shall not be interpreted as limiting the intentional exposure of patients to radiation for the purpose of diagnosis, analysis, or therapy by persons licensed to practice one (1) or more of the health professions within the authority granted to them by statute or regulation

Regulation 61-64 x-rays (title b)

Except as otherwise specifically provided, these regulations apply to all persons who receive, possess, use, transfer, own, or acquire any x-ray producing machine. The provisions of these regulations shall not be interpreted as limiting the intentional exposure of patients to radiation for the purpose of diagnosis, analysis, or therapy by persons licensed to practice one or more of the health professions within the authority granted to them by statute or regulation

Blood Cytokines as Biomarkers of In Vivo Toxicity in Preclinical Safety Assessment: Considerations for Their Use

In the drive to develop drugs with well-characterized and clinically monitorable safety profiles, there is incentive to expand the repertoire of safety biomarkers for toxicities without routine markers or premonitory detection. Biomarkers in blood are pursued because of specimen accessibility, opportunity for serial monitoring, quantitative measurement, and the availability of assay platforms. Cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors (here referred to collectively as cytokines) show robust modulation in proximal events of inflammation, immune response, and repair. These are key general processes in many toxicities; therefore, cytokines are commonly identified during biomarker discovery studies. In addition, multiplexed cytokine immunoassays are easily applied to biomarker discovery and routine toxicity studies to measure blood cytokines. However, cytokines pose several challenges as safety biomarkers because of a short serum half-life; low to undetectable baseline levels; lack of tissue-specific or toxicity-specific expression; complexities related to cytokine expression with multiorgan involvement; and species, strain, and interindividual differences. Additional challenges to their application are caused by analytical, methodological, and study design–related variables. A final consideration is the strength of the relationship between changes in cytokine levels and the development of phenotypic or functional manifestations of toxicity. These factors should inform the integrated judgment-based qualification of novel biomarkers in preclinical, and potentially clinical, risk assessment. The dearth of robust, predictive cytokine biomarkers for specific toxicities is an indication of the significant complexity of these challenges. This review will consider the current state of the science and recommendations for appropriate application of cytokines in preclinical safety assessment

(Re)considering the Concept of Literature Review Reproducibility

Literature reviews play a key role in academic research by describing, understanding, explaining, and testing the constructs and theories within a particular topic area. In recent years, various commentaries, debates, and editorials in the information systems (IS) field’s top journals have highlighted the importance of a trustworthy literature review process, including detailed discussions on systematicity and transparency. Although the reproducibility of a literature review has also been noted as important, it remains less recognized because of several terminology-related issues. This ambiguity could result in misunderstandings regarding the degree of trust that should be placed in a literature review’s process. In this research essay, we seek to clarify what makes a literature review reproducible, how it is distinct from related concepts, and when achieving it is desirable and feasible. We propose a series of clarifications and remedies to assist scholars within and outside the IS field in the preparation of stand-alone reviews

Knowledge in the dark: scientific challenges and ways forward

A key dimension of our current era is Big Data, the rapid rise in produced data and information; a key frustration is that we are nonetheless living in an age of ignorance, as the real knowledge and understanding of people does not seem to be substantially increasing. This development has critical consequences, for example it limits the ability to find and apply effective solutions to pressing environmental and socioeconomic challenges. Here, we propose the concept of “knowledge in the dark”—or short: dark knowledge—and outline how it can help clarify key reasons for this development: (i) production of biased, erroneous, or fabricated data and information; (ii) inaccessibility and (iii) incomprehensibility of data and information; and (iv) loss of previous knowledge. Even in the academic realm, where financial interests are less pronounced than in the private sector, several factors lead to dark knowledge, that is they inhibit a more substantial increase in knowledge and understanding. We highlight four of these factors—loss of academic freedom, research biases, lack of reproducibility, and the Scientific tower of Babel—and offer ways to tackle them, for example establishing an international court of arbitration for research and developing advanced tools for research synthesis

Community recommendations on terminology and procedures used in flooding and low oxygen stress research

Apart from playing a key role in important biochemical reactions, molecular oxygen (O2) and its by-products also have crucial signaling roles in shaping plant developmental programs and environmental responses. Even under normal conditions, sharp O2 gradients can occur within the plant when cellular O2 demand exceeds supply, especially in dense organs such as tubers, seeds and fruits. Spatial and temporal variations in O2 concentrations are important cues for plants to modulate development (van Dongen & Licausi, 2015; Considine et al., 2016). Environmental conditions can also expand the low O2 regions within the plant. For example, excessive rainfall can lead to partial or complete plant submergence resulting in O2 deficiency in the root or the entire plant (Voesenek & Bailey-Serres, 2015). Climate change-associated increases in precipitation events have made flooding a major abiotic stress threatening crop production and food sustainability. This increased flooding and associated crop losses highlight the urgency of understanding plant flooding responses and tolerance mechanisms. Timely manifestation of physiological and morphological changes triggering developmental adjustments or flooding survival strategies requires accurate sensing of O2 levels. Despite progress in understanding how plants sense and respond to changes in intracellular O2 concentrations (van Dongen & Licausi, 2015), several questions remain unanswered due to a lack of high resolution tools to accurately and noninvasively monitor (sub)cellular O2 concentrations. In the absence of such tools, it is therefore critical for researchers in the field to be aware of how experimental conditions can influence plant O2 levels, and thus on the importance of accurately reporting specific experimental details. This also requires a consensus on the definition of frequently used terms. At the 15th New Phytologist Workshop on Flooding stress (Voesenek et al., 2016), community members discussed and agreed on unified nomenclature and standard norms for low O2 and flooding stress research. This consensus on terminology and experimental guidelines is presented here. We expect that these norms will facilitate more effective interpretation, comparison and reproducibility of research in this field. We also highlight the current challenges in noninvasively monitoring and measuring O2 concentrations in plant cells, outlining the technologies currently available, their strengths and drawbacks, and their suitability for use in flooding and low O2 research

Differences in code terminology and frequency of findings in meat inspection of finishing pigs in seven European countries

The overall objectives of meat inspection are to contribute to food safety, animal welfare, and animal health. In the European Union (EU), there is a request for a modernised meat inspection system that addresses these objectives in a more valid, feasible and cost-effective way than does the traditional system. One part of the modernisation deals with the coding system to register meat inspection findings. Although unified standards are set at the EU level for judgement criteria regarding fitness of meat for consumption, different national systems are in force. The question is the extent of the differences and whether there is a basis for harmonisation. To investigate this, information was gathered about the code systems in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Spain. Moreover, meat inspection data covering pigs slaughtered in 2019 were collected. A comparison of the number of codes available, the terminology and the frequencies of the findings registered was undertaken. Codes with a similar meaning were grouped. Hereby, two lists were compiled showing the most common codes leading to total and to partial condemnation. Substantial variations in the percentage of condemned pigs and in the terms used were identified, and possible reasons behind this are discussed. Moreover, a strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats (SWOT)-like analysis was applied to the coding systems. Finally, the reasons for unfitness of meat given in the EU Food Inspection Regulation 2019/627 were compared to the national code lists. The results show the systems in force varied substantially, and each system had its advantages and disadvantages. The diverse terminology observed made it a challenge to compare data between countries. Development of harmonised terminology for meat inspection findings is suggested, enabling comparison of data between abattoirs, regions, and countries, while respecting the national epidemiological situation, the local food safety culture, and the trade agreements in force.Peer reviewe

Differences in code terminology and frequency of findings in meat inspection of finishing pigs in seven European countries

The overall objectives of meat inspection are to contribute to food safety, animal welfare, and animal health. In the European Union (EU), there is a request for a modernised meat inspection system that addresses these objectives in a more valid, feasible and cost-effective way than does the traditional system. One part of the modernisation deals with the coding system to register meat inspection findings. Although unified standards are set at the EU level for judgement criteria regarding fitness of meat for consumption, different national systems are in force. The question is the extent of the differences and whether there is a basis for harmonisation. To investigate this, information was gathered about the code systems in Denmark, Finland, Germany, Italy, Norway, Portugal and Spain. Moreover, meat inspection data covering pigs slaughtered in 2019 were collected. A comparison of the number of codes available, the terminology and the frequencies of the findings registered was undertaken. Codes with a similar meaning were grouped. Hereby, two lists were compiled showing the most common codes leading to total and to partial condemnation. Substantial variations in the percentage of condemned pigs and in the terms used were identified, and possible reasons behind this are discussed. Moreover, a strengths-weaknesses-opportunities-threats (SWOT)-like analysis was applied to the coding systems. Finally, the reasons for unfitness of meat given in the EU Food Inspection Regulation 2019/627 were compared to the national code lists. The results show the systems in force varied substantially, and each system had its advantages and disadvantages. The diverse terminology observed made it a challenge to compare data between countries. Development of harmonised terminology for meat inspection findings is suggested, enabling comparison of data between abattoirs, regions, and countries, while respecting the national epidemiological situation, the local food safety culture, and the trade agreements in force