COSMOS 2044: Lung morphology study, experiment K-7-28

Researchers examined the effect of microgravity during spaceflight on lung tissue. The ultrastructure of the left lungs of 5 Czechoslovakian Wister rats flown on the 13 day, 19+ hour Cosmos 2044 mission was examined and compared to 5 vivarium and 5 synchronous controls at 1-g conditions, and 5 rats exposed to 14 days of tail suspension. Pulmonary hemorrage and alveolar adema of unknown origin occurred to a greater extent in the flight, tail-suspended, and synchronous control animals, and in the dorsal regions of the lung when compared with the vivarium controls. The cause of these changes, which are possibly due to an increase in pulmonary vascular pressure, requires further investigation

Alternative Markers of Performance in Simulation: Where We Are and Where We Need To Go

This article on alternative markers of performance in simulation is the product of a session held during the 2017 Academic Emergency Medicine Consensus Conference â Catalyzing System Change Through Health Care Simulation: Systems, Competency, and Outcomes.â There is a dearth of research on the use of performance markers other than checklists, holistic ratings, and behaviorally anchored rating scales in the simulation environment. Through literature review, group discussion, and consultation with experts prior to the conference, the working group defined five topics for discussion: 1) establishing a working definition for alternative markers of performance, 2) defining goals for using alternative performance markers, 3) implications for measurement when using alternative markers, identifying practical concerns related to the use of alternative performance markers, and 5) identifying potential for alternative markers of performance to validate simulation scenarios. Five research propositions also emerged and are summarized.Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142535/1/acem13321_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/142535/2/acem13321.pd

Ventilation–perfusion heterogeneity measured by the multiple inert gas elimination technique is minimally affected by intermittent breathing of 100% O2

Proton magnetic resonance (MR) imaging to quantify regional ventilation–perfusion ((Formula presented.)) ratios combines specific ventilation imaging (SVI) and separate proton density and perfusion measures into a composite map. Specific ventilation imaging exploits the paramagnetic properties of O2, which alters the local MR signal intensity, in an FIO2-dependent manner. Specific ventilation imaging data are acquired during five wash-in/wash-out cycles of breathing 21% O2 alternating with 100% O2 over ~20 min. This technique assumes that alternating FIO2 does not affect (Formula presented.) heterogeneity, but this is unproven. We tested the hypothesis that alternating FIO2 exposure increases (Formula presented.) mismatch in nine patients with abnormal pulmonary gas exchange and increased (Formula presented.) mismatch using the multiple inert gas elimination technique (MIGET).The following data were acquired (a) breathing air (baseline), (b) breathing alternating air/100% O2 during an emulated-SVI protocol (eSVI), and (c) 20 min after ambient air breathing (recovery). MIGET heterogeneity indices of shunt, deadspace, ventilation versus (Formula presented.) ratio, LogSD (Formula presented.), and perfusion versus (Formula presented.) ratio, LogSD (Formula presented.) were calculated. LogSD (Formula presented.) was not different between eSVI and baseline (1.04 ± 0.39 baseline, 1.05 ± 0.38 eSVI, p =.84); but was reduced compared to baseline during recovery (0.97 ± 0.39, p =.04). There was no significant difference in LogSD (Formula presented.) across conditions (0.81 ± 0.30 baseline, 0.79 ± 0.15 eSVI, 0.79 ± 0.20 recovery; p =.54); Deadspace was not significantly different (p =.54) but shunt showed a borderline increase during eSVI (1.0% ± 1.0 baseline, 2.6% ± 2.9 eSVI; p =.052) likely from altered hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction and/or absorption atelectasis. Intermittent breathing of 100% O2 does not substantially alter (Formula presented.) matching and if SVI measurements are made after perfusion measurements, any potential effects will be minimized

Regulatory Improvement Legislation: Risk Assessment, Cost-Benefit Analysis, and Judicial Review

As the number, cost, and complexity of federal regulations have grown over the past twenty years, there has been growing interest in the use of analytic tools such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis to improve the regulatory process. The application of these tools to public health, safety, and environmental problems has become commonplace in the peer-reviewed scientific and medical literatures. Recent studies prepared by Resources for the Future, the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis have demonstrated how formal analyses can and often do help government agencies achieve more protection against hazards at less cost than would otherwise occur. Although analytic tools hold great promise, their use by federal agencies is neither consistent nor rigorous. The 103rd, 104th, 105th and 106th Congresses demonstrated sustained interest in the passage of comprehensive legislation governing the employment of these tools in the federal regulatory process. While legislative proposals on this issue have attracted significant bipartisan interest, and recent amendments to particular enabling statutes have incorporated some of these analytical requirements, no comprehensive legislation has been enacted into law since passage of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946. The inability to pass such legislation has been attributed to a variety of factors, but a common substantive concern has been uncertainty and controversy about how such legislation should address judicial review issues. For example, the judicial review portion of The Regulatory Improvement Act (S. 981), the 105th Congress\u27s major legislative initiative, was criticized simultaneously as meaningless (for allegedly offering too few opportunities for petitioners to challenge poorly reasoned agency rules) and dangerous (as supposedly enabling petitioners to paralyze even well-reasoned agency rules). Thus, a significant obstacle to regulatory improvement legislation appears to be the conflicting opinions among legal scholars and practitioners about how judicial review issues should be addressed in such legislation. The Clinton Administration and the authors of S. 981 believe they have crafted a workable compromise, one that accommodates the need to bring more rigor and transparency to an agency\u27s decisional processes without imposing excessive judicial review. Nevertheless, it is clear that their agreement on this subject, if included in future legislative deliberations, will be scrutinized and contested. Recognizing the importance of the judicial review issue to this and, indeed, any effort to improve the regulatory process, the Center for Risk Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health convened an invitational Workshop of accomplished legal practitioners and scholars to discuss how judicial review should be handled in legislation of this kind. The full-day Workshop was conducted in Washington, D.C. on December 17, 1998. Its purpose was to discuss principles, experiences, and insights that might inform future public debate about how judicial review should be addressed in legislative proposals that entail use of risk assessment and/or cost-benefit analysis in agency decision-making (whether the proposals are comprehensive or agency-specific). In order to provide the Workshop a practical focus, participants analyzed the provisions of S. 981 (as modified at the request of the Clinton Administration). An exchange of letters between S. 981\u27s chief sponsors and the Clinton Administration defining the terms of the agreement was examined as well. This Report highlights the themes of the Workshop discussion and offers some specific commentary on how proposed legislation (including but not limited to S. 981) could be improved in future legislative deliberations

Regulatory Improvement Legislation: Risk Assessment, Cost-Benefit Analysis, and Judicial Review

As the number, cost, and complexity of federal regulations have grown over the past twenty years, there has been growing interest in the use of analytic tools such as risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis to improve the regulatory process. The application of these tools to public health, safety, and environmental problems has become commonplace in the peer-reviewed scientific and medical literatures. Recent studies prepared by Resources for the Future, the American Enterprise Institute, the Brookings Institution, and the Harvard Center for Risk Analysis have demonstrated how formal analyses can and often do help government agencies achieve more protection against hazards at less cost than would otherwise occur. Although analytic tools hold great promise, their use by federal agencies is neither consistent nor rigorous. The 103rd, 104th, 105th and 106th Congresses demonstrated sustained interest in the passage of comprehensive legislation governing the employment of these tools in the federal regulatory process. While legislative proposals on this issue have attracted significant bipartisan interest, and recent amendments to particular enabling statutes have incorporated some of these analytical requirements, no comprehensive legislation has been enacted into law since passage of the Administrative Procedure Act in 1946. The inability to pass such legislation has been attributed to a variety of factors, but a common substantive concern has been uncertainty and controversy about how such legislation should address judicial review issues. For example, the judicial review portion of The Regulatory Improvement Act (S. 981), the 105th Congress\u27s major legislative initiative, was criticized simultaneously as meaningless (for allegedly offering too few opportunities for petitioners to challenge poorly reasoned agency rules) and dangerous (as supposedly enabling petitioners to paralyze even well-reasoned agency rules). Thus, a significant obstacle to regulatory improvement legislation appears to be the conflicting opinions among legal scholars and practitioners about how judicial review issues should be addressed in such legislation. The Clinton Administration and the authors of S. 981 believe they have crafted a workable compromise, one that accommodates the need to bring more rigor and transparency to an agency\u27s decisional processes without imposing excessive judicial review. Nevertheless, it is clear that their agreement on this subject, if included in future legislative deliberations, will be scrutinized and contested. Recognizing the importance of the judicial review issue to this and, indeed, any effort to improve the regulatory process, the Center for Risk Analysis at the Harvard School of Public Health convened an invitational Workshop of accomplished legal practitioners and scholars to discuss how judicial review should be handled in legislation of this kind. The full-day Workshop was conducted in Washington, D.C. on December 17, 1998. Its purpose was to discuss principles, experiences, and insights that might inform future public debate about how judicial review should be addressed in legislative proposals that entail use of risk assessment and/or cost-benefit analysis in agency decision-making (whether the proposals are comprehensive or agency-specific). In order to provide the Workshop a practical focus, participants analyzed the provisions of S. 981 (as modified at the request of the Clinton Administration). An exchange of letters between S. 981\u27s chief sponsors and the Clinton Administration defining the terms of the agreement was examined as well. This Report highlights the themes of the Workshop discussion and offers some specific commentary on how proposed legislation (including but not limited to S. 981) could be improved in future legislative deliberations

Managing for ocean biodiversity to sustain marine ecosystem services

Managing a complex ecosystem to balance delivery of all of its services is at the heart of ecosystem-based management. But how can this balance be accomplished amidst the conflicting demands of stakeholders, managers, and policy makers? In marine ecosystems, several common ecological mechanisms link biodiversity to ecosystem functioning and to a complex of essential services. As a result, the effects of preserving diversity can be broadly beneficial to a wide spectrum of important ecosystem processes and services, including fisheries, water quality, recreation, and shoreline protection. A management system that conserves diversity will help to accrue more “ecoservice capital” for human use and will maintain a hedge against unanticipated ecosystem changes from natural or anthropogenic causes. Although maintenance of biodiversity cannot be the only goal for ecosystem-based management, it could provide a common currency for evaluating the impacts of different human activities on ecosystem functioning and can act as a critical indicator of ecosystem status

Applying an ecosystem services framework on nature and mental health to recreational blue space visits across 18 countries

The effects of ‘nature’ on mental health and subjective well-being have yet to be consistently integrated into ecosystem service models and frameworks. To address this gap, we used data on subjective mental well-being from an 18-country survey to test a conceptual model integrating mental health with ecosystem services, initially proposed by Bratman et al. We analysed a range of individual and contextual factors in the context of 14,998 recreational visits to blue spaces, outdoor environments which prominently feature water. Consistent with the conceptual model, subjective mental well-being outcomes were dependent upon on a complex interplay of environmental type and quality, visit characteristics, and individual factors. These results have implications for public health and environmental management, as they may help identify the bluespace locations, environmental features, and key activities, that are most likely to impact well-being, but also potentially affect recreational demand on fragile aquatic ecosystems

Sensory Measurements: Coordination and Standardization

Do sensory measurements deserve the label of “measurement”? We argue that they do. They fit with an epistemological view of measurement held in current philosophy of science, and they face the same kinds of epistemological challenges as physical measurements do: the problem of coordination and the problem of standardization. These problems are addressed through the process of “epistemic iteration,” for all measurements. We also argue for distinguishing the problem of standardization from the problem of coordination. To exemplify our claims, we draw on olfactory performance tests, especially studies linking olfactory decline to neurodegenerative disorders