Comparison of non-mydriatic fundus photography and optical coherence tomography with dilated fundus examination for detecting diabetic retinopathy including diabetic macular edema

Given increasing diabetes rates worldwide, better screening tools for diabetic retinopathy (DR) and macular edema (DME) are needed. The study aim was to compare reliability and predictive values between non-mydriatic fundus photography (NMFP) and spectral-domain optical coherence tomography (OCT) for detection of DR and DME with dilated fundus examination (DFE). This was a non-interventional, comparative study. Diabetics underwent both NMFP and macula OCT, followed by DFE. Images were interpreted by two masked ophthalmologists. The DFE result was considered gold standard. One hundred and fifty-four eyes of 83 patients were recruited. Sensitivity of NMFP for DR was 77.3% and 80.3% for OCT. Specificity for NMFP was 81.8% and 55.7% for OCT. Area under Receiver Operating Characteristics Curve (AROC) for DR was 0.80 for NMFP and 0.68 for OCT. The sensitivity of NMFP for DME was 63.2% and 82.5% for OCT. Specificity for DME was 90.1% by NMFP and 61.5% for OCT. Positive predictive value (PPV) of NMFP and OCT for DR was 76.1% (95% CI: 63.9-85.3%) and 57.6% (46.8-67.7%), respectively. Negative predictive value (NPV) of NMFP and OCT was 82.7% (95% CI: 72.8-89.7%) and 79.0% (66.4-87.9%) respectively. Positive predictive value of NMFP and OCT for DME was 80.0% (95% CI: 67.6- 88.5%) and 57.3% (45.9-68.0%), respectively. Negative predictive value of NMFP and OCT was 79.6% (95% CI:70.3 - 86.7%) and 84.8% (95% CI:73.4 - 92.1%), respectively. Eyes with normal OCT miss 21% of DR. In conclusion, NMFP is better than OCT for DR screening, while OCT is better than NMFP and DFE for detection of DME. Both modalities should be for better DR screening

Feedback for relatedness and competence:Can feedback in blended learning contribute to optimal rigor, basic needs, and motivation?

\u3cp\u3eWe inquire how peer and tutor feedback influences students' optimal rigor, basic needs and motivation. We analyze questionnaires from two courses in two subsequent years. We conclude that feedback in blended learning can contribute to rigor and basic needs, but it is not clear from our data what triggers this relation. The data show that feedback does not influence motivation.\u3c/p\u3

Integrated 3D-printed reactionware for chemical synthesis and analysis

Three-dimensional (3D) printing has the potential to transform science and technology by creating bespoke, low-cost appliances that previously required dedicated facilities to make. An attractive, but unexplored, application is to use a 3D printer to initiate chemical reactions by printing the reagents directly into a 3D reactionware matrix, and so put reactionware design, construction and operation under digital control. Here, using a low-cost 3D printer and open-source design software we produced reactionware for organic and inorganic synthesis, which included printed-in catalysts and other architectures with printed-in components for electrochemical and spectroscopic analysis. This enabled reactions to be monitored in situ so that different reactionware architectures could be screened for their efficacy for a given process, with a digital feedback mechanism for device optimization. Furthermore, solely by modifying reactionware architecture, reaction outcomes can be altered. Taken together, this approach constitutes a relatively cheap, automated and reconfigurable chemical discovery platform that makes techniques from chemical engineering accessible to typical synthetic laboratories