The pop-up research centre - Challenges and opportunities

Objectives: This article sets out to describe the concept of the “pop-up” research centre as a means to promote and develop radiography research locally, nationally and internationally, and to empower professional colleagues to set up similar initiatives in the future. Key findings: A detailed overview of the development and management of “pop-up” research is provided based on the experiences of the authors, including specific examples. Matters such as study design, approvals, equipment and software, environment, participant recruitment and management, research teams and activity costs are discussed. Quantifiable benefits of “pop-up” research such as resultant peer reviewed publications, development of researchers' skills and potential collaborations are described. A number of “soft skill” benefits are also apparent and include enhanced organisational profiles, team building and the development of leadership skills. Conclusions: “Pop-up” research centres are a valuable option for conducting research and offer the radiography profession an achievable mechanism to increase and enhance research activity. However, careful planning and execution are essential

Characteristics of meiofauna in extreme marine ecosystems: a review

Extreme marine environments cover more than 50% of the Earth’s surface and offer many opportunities for investigating the biological responses and adaptations of organisms to stressful life conditions. Extreme marine environments are sometimes associated with ephemeral and unstable ecosystems, but can host abundant, often endemic and well-adapted meiofaunal species. In this review, we present an integrated view of the biodiversity, ecology and physiological responses of marine meiofauna inhabiting several extreme marine environments (mangroves, submarine caves, Polar ecosystems, hypersaline areas, hypoxic/anoxic environments, hydrothermal vents, cold seeps, carcasses/sunken woods, deep-sea canyons, deep hypersaline anoxic basins [DHABs] and hadal zones). Foraminiferans, nematodes and copepods are abundant in almost all of these habitats and are dominant in deep-sea ecosystems. The presence and dominance of some other taxa that are normally less common may be typical of certain extreme conditions. Kinorhynchs are particularly well adapted to cold seeps and other environments that experience drastic changes in salinity, rotifers are well represented in polar ecosystems and loriciferans seem to be the only metazoan able to survive multiple stressors in DHABs. As well as natural processes, human activities may generate stressful conditions, including deoxygenation, acidification and rises in temperature. The behaviour and physiology of different meiofaunal taxa, such as some foraminiferans, nematode and copepod species, can provide vital information on how organisms may respond to these challenges and can provide a warning signal of anthropogenic impacts. From an evolutionary perspective, the discovery of new meiofauna taxa from extreme environments very often sheds light on phylogenetic relationships, while understanding how meiofaunal organisms are able to survive or even flourish in these conditions can explain evolutionary pathways. Finally, there are multiple potential economic benefits to be gained from ecological, biological, physiological and evolutionary studies of meiofauna in extreme environments. Despite all the advantages offered by meiofauna studies from extreme environments, there is still an urgent need to foster meiofauna research in terms of composition, ecology, biology and physiology focusing on extreme environments

Recent research on Gulf War illness and other health problems in veterans of the 1991 Gulf War: Effects of toxicant exposures during deployment

Veterans of Operation Desert Storm/Desert Shield - the 1991 Gulf War (GW) - are a unique population who returned from theater with multiple health complaints and disorders. Studies in the U.S. and elsewhere have consistently concluded that approximately 25-32% of this population suffers from a disorder characterized by symptoms that vary somewhat among individuals and include fatigue, headaches, cognitive dysfunction, musculoskeletal pain, and respiratory, gastrointestinal and dermatologic complaints. Gulf War illness (GWI) is the term used to describe this disorder. In addition, brain cancer occurs at increased rates in subgroups of GW veterans, as do neuropsychological and brain imaging abnormalities. Chemical exposures have become the focus of etiologic GWI research because nervous system symptoms are prominent and many neurotoxicants were present in theater, including organophosphates (OPs), carbamates, and other pesticides; sarin/cyclosarin nerve agents, and pyridostigmine bromide (PB) medications used as prophylaxis against chemical warfare attacks. Psychiatric etiologies have been ruled out. This paper reviews the recent literature on the health of 1991 GW veterans, focusing particularly on the central nervous system and on effects of toxicant exposures. In addition, it emphasizes research published since 2008, following on an exhaustive review that was published in that year that summarizes the prior literature (RACGWI, 2008). We conclude that exposure to pesticides and/or to PB are causally associated with GWI and the neurological dysfunction in GW veterans. Exposure to sarin and cyclosarin and to oil well fire emissions are also associated with neurologically based health effects, though their contribution to development of the disorder known as GWI is less clear. Gene-environment interactions are likely to have contributed to development of GWI in deployed veterans. The health consequences of chemical exposures in the GW and other conflicts have been called "toxic wounds" by veterans. This type of injury requires further study and concentrated treatment research efforts that may also benefit other occupational groups with similar exposure-related illnesses

Nuisance levels of noise effects radiologists' performance

This study aimed to measure the sound levels in Irish x-ray departments. The study then established whether these levels of noise have an impact on radiologists performance Noise levels were recorded 10 times within each of 14 environments in 4 hospitals, 11 of which were locations where radiologic images are judged. Thirty chest images were then presented to 26 senior radiologists, who were asked to detect up to three nodular lesions within 30 posteroanterior chest x-ray images in the absence and presence of noise at amplitude demonstrated in the clinical environment. The results demonstrated that noise amplitudes rarely exceeded that encountered with normal conversation with the maximum mean value for an image-viewing environment being 56.1 dB. This level of noise had no impact on the ability of radiologists to identify chest lesions with figure of merits of 0.68, 0.69, and 0.68 with noise and 0.65, 0.68, and 0.67 without noise for chest radiologists, non-chest radiologists, and all radiologists, respectively. the difference in their performance using the DBM MRMC method was significantly better with noise than in the absence of noise at the 90% confidence interval (p=0.077). Further studies are required to establish whether other aspects of diagnosis are impaired such as recall and attention and the effects of more unexpected noise on performance

The impact of acoustic noise found within clinical departments on radiology performance

Rationale and objectives: In recent years, there has been increasing interest in the impact of environmental factors such as ambient light on radiologist performance. One commonly encountered distractor found within all clinical departments that has received little or no attention is acoustic noise. Materials and methods: The present work records the level of noises encountered within environments where radiologic images are viewed and establishes the impact of a clinically relevant level of noise on the ability of radiologists to perform a typical diagnostic task. Noise levels were recorded 10 times within each of 14 environments, 11 of which were locations where radiologic images are judged. Thirty chest images were then presented to 26 senior radiologists, who were asked to detect up to three nodular lesions within 30 posteroanterior chest x-ray images in the absence and presence of noise at an amplitude demonstrated in the clinical environment. Jackknife free-response receiver-operating characteristic analyses was performed on the free-response data. Results: The results demonstrated that noise amplitudes rarely exceeded that encountered with normal conversation with the maximum mean value for an image-viewing environment being 56.1 dB. This level of noise had no impact on the ability of radiologists to identify chest lesions with figure of merits of 0.68, 0.69, and 0.68 with noise and 0.65, 0.68, and 0.67 without noise for chest radiologists, nonchest radiologists, and all radiologists, respectively. Equally, no differences were seen for false-positive and false-negative scores or on the time required to judge the images. Conclusion: These findings suggest that noise at levels encountered within areas where radiologic images are viewed is not a major distractor within the reporting environment, but the need for further work has been identified

Visual adaptation: softcopy image contribution to the observer's field of view

Purpose: Detection of low-contrast details is highly dependent on the adaptation state of the eye. It is important therefore that the average luminance of the observer's field of view (FOV) matches those of softcopy radiological images. This study establishes the percentage of FOV filled by workstations at various viewing distances. Methods: Five observers stood at viewing distances of 20, 30 and 50cm from a homogenous white surface and were instructed to continuously focus on a fixed object at a height appropriate level. A dark indicator was held at this object and then moved steadily until the observer could no longer perceive it in his/her peripheral vision. This was performed at 0°, 90°, 180° and 270° clockwise from the median sagittal plane. Distances were recorded, radii calculated and observer and mean FOV areas established. These values were then compared with areas of typical high and low specification workstations. Results: Individual and mean FOVs were 7660, 15463 and 30075cm2 at viewing distances of 20, 30 and 50cm respectively. High and low specification monitors with respective areas of 1576.25 and 921.25cm2 contributed between 5 to 21% and 3 to 12% respectively to the total FOV depending on observer distance. Limited inter-observer variances were noted. Conclusions: Radiology workstations typically comprise between only 3 and 21% of the observer's FOV. This demonstrates the importance of measuring ambient light levels and surface reflection coefficients in order to maximise adaptation and observer's perception of low contrast detail and minimise eye strain

Does training have an impact on radiography students’ approach to chest X-ray image quality assessment ?

Introduction: Radiography is evolving, and education must evolve with it. Radiography training mainly consists of theory-centred classes and clinical practice; however, this varies from country to country. Image quality assessment is a critical part of radiography. This study examines how aspects of training influence student radiographers’ decision making. Aim: To investigate whether training (academic study, clinical experience and country of education) received by undergraduate radiography students in four European countries influences their assessment of image acceptability/quality. Materials and Methods: 23 radiography students from four European countries completed the task of accepting or rejecting 30 chest radiographs on the basis of image quality. Each participant gave reasons for any rejections. The total time taken, reject rate and reasons for rejection were compared between students in earlier/later stages of their degrees, those with more/less clinical experience, and those from different countries. Results: Clinical experience, academic experience or country of education did not influence time taken by participants to view images. Participants with more clinical experience rejected more images than those with less. Clinical experience and country of education also influenced reasons for image rejection; participants with more clinical experience rejected significantly more images for absence of a lead marker, while Irish and Norwegian students rejected more images based on exposure than Swiss students. Conclusion: Clinical experience had an influence on student radiographers’ assessment of chest x-ray image quality in terms of both rejection rates and reasons for rejecting images. Country of education also influenced reasons for rejection