‘Lest we forget’*: a veteran and son share a ‘warfare tourism’ experience

Warfare tourism’ represents an increasingly significant dimension of contemporary tourism. This paper provides a fresh perspective on participation in ‘warfare tourism’ by investigating the behaviour and experiences of a living veteran and his son returning to two theatres of war in which the veteran had served in the Royal Navy during the Second World War. Active interviews with the two family members were used to gather rich data regarding the two extended trips, which had been funded by ‘Heroes Return’, to Australia in 2012 and Sri Lanka in 2013. The findings indicate that some of the facets of visiting the fallen at other dark tourism sites, such as empathetic identification and personal connection, are also very relevant to trips shared between the living. However, with the living these contribute to a powerful co-created experience in which ‘closer’ bonds between the travellers can be developed. Furthermore, whilst the experiences at times represented ‘bitter-sweet’ nostalgia for the veteran, they also provided the son with the opportunity to ‘look through his father’s eyes’ from both a past and current perspective. Given that there will be war veterans as long as conflicts exist, the results have valuable messages for all those dealing with veterans in the futur

Computer-aided assessment of diagnostic images for epidemiological research

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Diagnostic images are often assessed for clinical outcomes using subjective methods, which are limited by the skill of the reviewer. Computer-aided diagnosis (CAD) algorithms that assist reviewers in their decisions concerning outcomes have been developed to increase sensitivity and specificity in the clinical setting. However, these systems have not been well utilized in research settings to improve the measurement of clinical endpoints. Reductions in bias through their use could have important implications for etiologic research.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Using the example of cortical cataract detection, we developed an algorithm for assisting a reviewer in evaluating digital images for the presence and severity of lesions. Available image processing and statistical methods that were easily implementable were used as the basis for the CAD algorithm. The performance of the system was compared to the subjective assessment of five reviewers using 60 simulated images. Cortical cataract severity scores from 0 to 16 were assigned to the images by the reviewers and the CAD system, with each image assessed twice to obtain a measure of variability. Image characteristics that affected reviewer bias were also assessed by systematically varying the appearance of the simulated images.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The algorithm yielded severity scores with smaller bias on images where cataract severity was mild to moderate (approximately ≤ 6/16^<it>ths</it>). On high severity images, the bias of the CAD system exceeded that of the reviewers. The variability of the CAD system was zero on repeated images but ranged from 0.48 to 1.22 for the reviewers. The direction and magnitude of the bias exhibited by the reviewers was a function of the number of cataract opacities, the shape and the contrast of the lesions in the simulated images.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>CAD systems are feasible to implement with available software and can be valuable when medical images contain exposure or outcome information for etiologic research. Our results indicate that such systems have the potential to decrease bias and discriminate very small changes in disease severity. Simulated images are a tool that can be used to assess performance of a CAD system when a gold standard is not available.</p

Thrombocytogenesis by megakaryocyte; Interpretation by protoplatelet hypothesis

Serial transmission electron microscopy of human megakaryocytes (MKs) revealed their polyploidization and gradual maturation through consecutive transition in characteristics of various organelles and others. At the beginning of differentiation, MK with ploidy 32N, e.g., has 16 centrosomes in the cell center surrounded by 32N nucleus. Each bundle of microtubules (MTs) emanated from the respective centrosome supports and organizes 16 equally volumed cytoplasmic compartments which together compose one single 32N MK. During the differentiation, single centriole separated from the centriole pair, i.e., centrosome, migrates to the most periphery of the cell through MT bundle, corresponding to a half of the interphase array originated from one centrosome, supporting one “putative cytoplasmic compartment” (PCC). Platelet demarcation membrane (DM) is constructed on the boundary surface between neighbouring PCCs. Matured PCC, composing of a tandem array of platelet territories covered by a sheet of DM is designated as protoplatelet. Eventually, the rupture of MK results in release of platelets from protoplatelets

Towards a multi-arm multi-stage platform trial of disease modifying approaches in Parkinson’s disease

\ua9 The Author(s) 2023. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Guarantors of Brain.An increase in the efficiency of clinical trial conduct has been successfully demonstrated in the oncology field, by the use of multi-arm, multi-stage trials allowing the evaluation of multiple therapeutic candidates simultaneously, and seamless recruitment to phase 3 for those candidates passing an interim signal of efficacy. Replicating this complex innovative trial design in diseases such as Parkinson’s disease is appealing, but in addition to the challenges associated with any trial assessing a single potentially disease modifying intervention in Parkinson’s disease, a multiarm platform trial must also specifically consider the heterogeneous nature of the disease, alongside the desire to potentially test multiple treatments with different mechanisms of action. In a multi-arm trial, there is a need to appropriately stratify treatment arms to ensure each are comparable with a shared placebo/standard of care arm; however, in Parkinson’s disease there may be a preference to enrich an arm with a subgroup of patients that may be most likely to respond to a specific treatment approach. The solution to this conundrum lies in having clearly defined criteria for inclusion in each treatment arm as well as an analysis plan that takes account of predefined subgroups of interest, alongside evaluating the impact of each treatment on the broader population of Parkinson’s disease patients. Beyond this, there must be robust processes of treatment selection, and consensus derived measures to confirm target engagement and interim assessments of efficacy, as well as consideration of the infrastructure needed to support recruitment, and the long-term funding and sustainability of the platform. This has to incorporate the diverse priorities of clinicians, triallists, regulatory authorities and above all the views of people with Parkinson’s disease

Towards a multi-arm multi-stage platform trial of disease modifying approaches in Parkinson’s disease

An increase in the efficiency of clinical trial conduct has been successfully demonstrated in the oncology field, by the use of multi-arm, multi-stage trials allowing the evaluation of multiple therapeutic candidates simultaneously, and seamless recruitment to phase 3 for those candidates passing an interim signal of efficacy. Replicating this complex innovative trial design in diseases such as Parkinson’s disease is appealing, but in addition to the challenges associated with any trial assessing a single potentially disease modifying intervention in Parkinson’s disease, a multi-arm platform trial must also specifically consider the heterogeneous nature of the disease, alongside the desire to potentially test multiple treatments with different mechanisms of action. In a multi-arm trial, there is a need to appropriately stratify treatment arms to ensure each are comparable with a shared placebo/standard of care arm; however, in Parkinson’s disease there may be a preference to enrich an arm with a subgroup of patients that may be most likely to respond to a specific treatment approach. The solution to this conundrum lies in having clearly defined criteria for inclusion in each treatment arm as well as an analysis plan that takes account of predefined subgroups of interest, alongside evaluating the impact of each treatment on the broader population of Parkinson’s disease patients. Beyond this, there must be robust processes of treatment selection, and consensus derived measures to confirm target engagement and interim assessments of efficacy, as well as consideration of the infrastructure needed to support recruitment, and the long-term funding and sustainability of the platform. This has to incorporate the diverse priorities of clinicians, triallists, regulatory authorities and above all the views of people with Parkinson’s disease