Sensor-based assessment of herbicide effects

Non-destructive assessment of herbicide effects may be able to support integrated weed management. To test whether effects of herbicides on canopy variables could be detected by sensors, two crops were used as models and treated with herbicides at BBCH 20 using a loga rithmic sprayer. Twelve days after spraying at BBCH 25 and 42 days after sowing, nine sensor systems scanned a spring barley and an oilseed rape field experiment sown at different densities and sprayed with increasing field rates of glyphosate and tribenuron-methyl. The objec tive was to compare ED50s for crops and weeds derived by the different sensors in relation to crop density and herbicides. Although sensors were not directly developed to detect herbicide symptoms, they all detected changes in canopy colours or height and crop density. Generally ED50s showed the same pattern in response to crop density within herbicide, but there were marked differences between barley and oilseed rape. We suggest that the results of comparing the various sensor outputs could become a stepping stone to future stan dardisation for the benefit of the research and develop ment of sensors that will detect herbicide effect on crops and weeds, particularly at the most vulnerable stages of development of the canopy.We wish to thank EWRS and the University of Copenhagen for partly financial support.Peer reviewe

G-EYE colonoscopy is superior to standard colonoscopy for increasing adenoma detection rate: an international randomized controlled trial (with videos)

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is largely preventable with routine screening and surveillance colonoscopy; however, interval cancers arising from precancerous lesions missed by standard colonoscopy still occur. An increased adenoma detection rate (ADR) has been found to be inversely associated with interval cancers. The G-EYE device includes a reusable balloon integrated at the distal tip of a standard colonoscope, which flattens haustral folds, centralizes the colonoscope's optics, and reduces bowel slippage. The insufflated balloon also aims to enhance visualization of the colon during withdrawal, thereby increasing the ADR. METHODS: In this randomized, controlled, international, multicenter study (11 centers), patients (aged >/=50 years) referred to colonoscopy for screening, surveillance, or changes in bowel habits were randomized to undergo either balloon-assisted colonoscopy by using an insufflated balloon during withdrawal or standard high-definition colonoscopy. The primary endpoint was the ADR. RESULTS: One thousand patients were enrolled between May 2014 and September 2016 to undergo colonoscopy by experienced endoscopists; 803 were finally analyzed (standard colonoscopy n = 396; balloon-assisted colonoscopy n = 407). Baseline parameters were similar in both groups. Balloon-assisted colonoscopy provided a 48.0% ADR compared with 37.5% in the standard colonoscopy group (28% increase; P = .0027). Additionally, balloon-assisted colonoscopy provided for a significant increase in detection of advanced (P = .0033) flat adenomas (P < .0001) and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps (P = .0026). CONCLUSION: Balloon-assisted colonoscopy yielded a higher ADR and increased the detection of advanced, flat, and sessile serrated adenomas/polyps when compared with standard colonoscopy. Improved detection by the G-EYE device could impact the quality of CRC screening by reducing miss rates and consequently reducing interval cancer incidence. (Clinical trial registration number: NCT01917513.)