Proceso de Bolonia (II): educación centrada en el que aprende

El proceso de Bolonia apunta hacia la educación centrada en el que aprende. Lo hace desde una perspectiva administrativa cuando instaura el nuevo sistema de medida académica, el ECTS (European Credit Transferable System), común para todos y con la finalidad obvia de gestionar las transferencias de crédito de los programas Erasmus. Esta unidad de medida, a diferencia del crédito académico antiguo, que sólo contabilizaba como carga de trabajo las horas presenciales, es decir, el tiempo de ocupación del profesor, se modifica para incorporar las horas de trabajo del alumno, con y sin la presencia de un docente. Pero el mensaje no ofrece dudas a estas alturas. La universidad en Europa percibe que la sociedad le está pidiendo que sirva a un fin tan práctico como conseguir que el alumno aprenda y que lo considere un adulto responsable de su pro pio aprendizaje [1]. Como esto es relativamente nuevo en nuestro entorno parece recomendable iniciar un proceso de reflexión sobre lo que representa la educación centrada en el que aprende y cómo puede plantearse la migración desde la educación dirigida por el que enseña hasta esta nueva meta

Automated radiofrequency-based US measurement of common carotid intima-media thickness in RA patients treated with synthetic vs synthetic and biologic DMARDs

Objective. To compare the carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) assessed with automated radiofrequency-based US in RA patients treated with synthetic vs synthetic and biologic DMARDs and controls. Methods. Ninety-four RA patients and 94 sex-and age-matched controls were prospectively recruited at seven centres. Cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and co-morbidities, RA characteristics and therapy were recorded. Common carotid artery (CCA)-IMT was assessed in RA patients and controls with automated radiofrequency-based US by the same investigator at each centre. Results. Forty-five (47.9%) RA patients had been treated with synthetic DMARDs and 49 (52.1%) with synthetic and biologic DMARDs. There were no significant differences between the RA patients and controls in demographics, CV co-morbidities and CV disease. There were significantly more smokers among RA patients treated with synthetic and biologic DMARDs (P = 0.036). Disease duration and duration of CS and synthetic DMARD therapy was significantly longer in RA patients treated with synthetic and biologic DMARDs (P<0.0005). The mean CCA-IMT was significantly greater in RA patients treated only with synthetic DMARDs than in controls [591.4 (98.6) vs 562.1 (85.8); P = 0.035] and in RA patients treated with synthetic and biologic DMARDs [591.4 (98.6) vs 558.8 (95.3); P = 0.040). There was no significant difference between the mean CCA-IMT in RA patients treated with synthetic and biologic DMARDs and controls (P = 0.997). Conclusion. Our results suggest that radiofrequency-based measurement of CCA-IMT can discriminate between RA patients treated with synthetic DMARDs vs RA patients treated with synthetic and biologic DMARDs

Erratum: Production and validation of scintillating structural components from low-background Poly(ethylene naphthalate)

[no abstract available

Krebs von den Lungen-6 glycoprotein circulating levels are not useful as prognostic marker in COVID-19 pneumonia : A large prospective cohort study

Altres ajuts: Departament de Salut, Generalitat de Catalunya (COVID-PoC BioCAT).Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has rapidly expanded worldwide. Currently, there are no biomarkers to predict respiratory worsening in patients with mild to moderate COVID-19 pneumonia. Small studies explored the use of Krebs von de Lungen-6 circulating serum levels (sKL-6) as a prognostic biomarker of the worsening of COVID-19 pneumonia. We aimed at a large study to determine the prognostic value of sKL-6 in predicting evolving trends in COVID-19. We prospectively analyzed the characteristics of 836 patients with COVID-19 with mild lung disease on admission. sKL-6 was obtained in all patients at least at baseline and compared among patients with or without respiratory worsening. The receiver operating characteristic curve was used to find the optimal cutoff level. A total of 159 (19%) patients developed respiratory worsening during hospitalization. Baseline sKL-6 levels were not higher in patients who had respiratory worsening (median {IQR} 315.5 {209-469} vs. 306 {214-423} U/ml p = 0.38). The last sKL-6 and the change between baseline and last sKL-6 were higher in the respiratory worsening group (p = 0.02 and p < 0.0001, respectively). The best sKL-6 cutoff point for respiratory worsening was 497 U/ml (area under the curve 0.52; 23% sensitivity and 85% specificity). sKL-6 was not found to be an independent predictor of respiratory worsening. A conditional inference tree (CTREE) was not useful to discriminate patients at risk of worsening. We found that sKL-6 had a low sensibility to predict respiratory worsening in patients with mild-moderate COVID-19 pneumonia and may not be of use to assess the risk of present respiratory worsening in inpatients with COVID-19 pneumonia