UNASSIGNED: A comparison of diagnostic performance comparing AI-QCTISCHEMIA, coronary computed tomography angiography using fractional flow reserve (CT-FFR), and physician visual interpretation on the prediction of invasive adenosine FFR have not been evaluated. Furthermore, the coronary plaque characteristics impacting these tests have not been assessed.
UNASSIGNED: In a single centre, 43-month retrospective review of 442 patients referred for coronary computed tomography angiography and CT-FFR, 44 patients with CT-FFR had 54 vessels assessed using intracoronary adenosine FFR within 60 days. A comparison of the diagnostic performance among these three techniques for the prediction of FFR ≤ 0.80 was reported. The mean age of the study population was 65 years, 76.9% were male, and the median coronary artery calcium was 654. When analysing the per-vessel ischaemia prediction, AI-QCTISCHEMIA had greater specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), diagnostic accuracy, and area under the curve (AUC) vs. CT-FFR and physician visual interpretation CAD-RADS. The AUC for AI-QCTISCHEMIA was 0.91 vs. 0.76 for CT-FFR and 0.62 for CAD-RADS ≥ 3. Plaque characteristics that were different in false positive vs. true positive cases for AI-QCTISCHEMIA were max stenosis diameter % (54% vs. 67%, P < 0.01); for CT-FFR were maximum stenosis diameter % (40% vs. 65%, P < 0.001), total non-calcified plaque (9% vs. 13%, P < 0.01); and for physician visual interpretation CAD-RADS ≥ 3 were total non-calcified plaque (8% vs. 12%, P < 0.01), lumen volume (681 vs. 510 mm3, P = 0.02), maximum stenosis diameter % (40% vs. 62%, P < 0.001), total plaque (19% vs. 33%, P = 0.002), and total calcified plaque (11% vs. 22%, P = 0.003).
UNASSIGNED: Regarding per-vessel prediction of FFR ≤ 0.8, AI-QCTISCHEMIA revealed greater specificity, PPV, accuracy, and AUC vs. CT-FFR and physician visual interpretation CAD-RADS ≥ 3.

As the world recovers from the COVID-19 pandemic, a resurgence in MPXV cases is causing serious concern. The early clinical similarity of MPXV to common ailments like the flu and cold, coupled with the resemblances of its progressing rash to other infections, underscores the importance of prompt and accurate diagnosis. Among the infections, smallpox is clinically closest to MPXV, and rashes similar to MPXV stages also appear in syphilis and varicella zoster. A comprehensive review of MPXV, herpes, and syphilis was carried out, including structural and morphological features, origins, transmission modes, and computational studies. PubMed literature search on MPXV, using MeSH key terms, yielded 1904 results, with the analysis revealing prominent links to sexually transmitted diseases. More in-depth exploration of MPXV, Herpes Simplex Virus (HSV), and Syphilis revealed further disease interconnections and geographical correlations. These findings emphasize the need for a holistic understanding of these interconnected infectious agents for better control and management.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research. Yet, ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHStat Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force\'s writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and CONSORT harms guidelines and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces 7 new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental research into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research. Yet, ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHStat Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force\'s writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and CONSORT harms guidelines and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces 7 new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental research into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising research. Yet, evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-empaneled a group of authors to develop methodological and statistical reporting guidelines identifying the minimum information needed to document and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHstat Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The final version was subsequently approved by the Task Force in September 2021, submitted for journal review in 2022, and revised in 2023. The checklist consists of 48 guidelines: 5 for introductory information, 17 for methods, 13 for statistical analysis, 6 for results, and 7 for interpretation; 7 are specific to clinical trials. Each of these guidelines identifies relevant information, explains its importance, and often describes best practices. The checklist was published in multiple journals. The article was published simultaneously in JDR Clinical and Translational Research, the Journal of the American Dental Association, and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Completed checklists should accompany manuscripts submitted for publication to these and other oral health journals to help authors, journal editors, and reviewers verify that the manuscript provides the information necessary to adequately document and evaluate the research.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising research. Yet, evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-empaneled a group of authors to develop methodological and statistical reporting guidelines identifying the minimum information needed to document and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHstat Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The final version was subsequently approved by the Task Force in September 2021, submitted for journal review in 2022, and revised in 2023. The checklist consists of 48 guidelines: 5 for introductory information, 17 for methods, 13 for statistical analysis, 6 for results, and 7 for interpretation; 7 are specific to clinical trials. Each of these guidelines identifies relevant information, explains its importance, and often describes best practices. The checklist was published in multiple journals. The article was published simultaneously in JDR Clinical and Translational Research, the Journal of the American Dental Association, and the Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery. Completed checklists should accompany manuscripts submitted for publication to these and other oral health journals to help authors, journal editors, and reviewers verify that the manuscript provides the information necessary to adequately document and evaluate the research.

Adequate and transparent reporting is necessary for critically appraising published research. Yet, ample evidence suggests that the design, conduct, analysis, interpretation, and reporting of oral health research could be greatly improved. Accordingly, the Task Force on Design and Analysis in Oral Health Research-statisticians and trialists from academia and industry-identified the minimum information needed to report and evaluate observational studies and clinical trials in oral health: the OHStat Guidelines. Drafts were circulated to the editors of 85 oral health journals and to Task Force members and sponsors and discussed at a December 2020 workshop attended by 49 researchers. The guidelines were subsequently revised by the Task Force\'s writing group. The guidelines draw heavily from the Consolidated Standards for Reporting Trials (CONSORT), Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE), and CONSORT harms guidelines and incorporate the SAMPL guidelines for reporting statistics, the CLIP principles for documenting images, and the GRADE indicating the quality of evidence. The guidelines also recommend reporting estimates in clinically meaningful units using confidence intervals, rather than relying on P values. In addition, OHStat introduces 7 new guidelines that concern the text itself, such as checking the congruence between abstract and text, structuring the discussion, and listing conclusions to make them more specific. OHStat does not replace other reporting guidelines; it incorporates those most relevant to dental research into a single document. Manuscripts using the OHStat guidelines will provide more information specific to oral health research.

Purpose To compare parameters of left ventricular (LV) and right ventricular (RV) volume and function between a commercially available 0.55-T low-field-strength cardiac cine MRI scanner and a 1.5-T scanner. Materials and Methods In this prospective study, healthy volunteers (May 2022 to July 2022) underwent same-day cine imaging using both scanners (0.55 T, 1.5 T). Volumetric and functional parameters were assessed by two experts. After analyzing the results of a blinded crossover reader study of the healthy volunteers, 20 participants with clinically indicated cardiac MRI were prospectively included (November 2022 to February 2023). In a second blinded expert reading, parameters from clinical 1.5-T scans in these participants were compared with those same-day 0.55-T scans. Results are displayed as Bland-Altman plots. Results Eleven healthy volunteers (mean age: 33 years [95% CI: 27, 40]; four of 11 [36%] female, seven of 11 [64%] male) were included. Very strong mean correlation was observed (r = 0.98 [95% CI: 0.97, 0.98]). Average deviation between MRI systems was 1.6% (95% CI: 0.3, 2.9) for both readers. Twenty participants with clinically indicated cardiac MRI were included (mean age: 55 years [95% CI: 48, 62], six of 20 [30%] female, 14 of 20 [70%] male). Mean correlation was very strong (r = 0.98 [95% CI: 0.97, 0.98]). LV and RV parameters demonstrated an average deviation of 1.1% (95% CI: 0.1, 2.1) between MRI systems. Conclusion Cardiac cine MRI at 0.55 T yielded comparable results for quantitative biventricular volumetric and functional parameters compared with routine imaging at 1.5 T, if acquisition time is doubled. Keywords: Cardiac, Comparative Studies, Heart, Cardiovascular MRI, Cine, Myocardium Supplemental material is available for this article. ©RSNA, 2024.

BACKGROUND: In medical education, the learning environment (LE) significantly impacts students\' professionalism and academic performance. Positive LE perceptions are linked to better academic outcomes. Our study, which was conducted 15 years after curriculum reform at King Saud University\'s College of Medicine, aimed to explore students\' perspectives on their LE and identify areas for improvement. By understanding their experiences, we strive to enhance LE and promote academic success.
METHODS: This mixed-method study employed an explanatory sequential approach in which a cross-sectional analytical survey phase was collected first using the Johns Hopkins Learning Environment Scale (JHLES), followed by qualitative focus groups. Findings from quantitative and qualitative methods were integrated using joint display.
RESULTS: A total of 653 medical students completed the JHLES. The total average score was 81 out of 140 (16.8), and the average subscale scores ranged from 2.27 (0.95) for inclusion and safety to 3.37 (0.91) for community of peers. The qualitative approach encompasses both inductive and deductive analyses, identifying overarching themes comprising proudness, high expectations and competition, and views about the curriculum. The integration of results emphasizes the need for continued efforts to create a supportive and inclusive LE that positively influences students\' experiences and academic success.
CONCLUSIONS: This research offers valuable insights for educational institutions seeking to enhance medical education quality and support systems. Recommendations include faculty development, the cultivation of supportive environments, curriculum revision, improved mentorship programs, and initiatives to promote inclusivity and gender equity. Future research should explore longitudinal and comparative studies, innovative mixed methods approaches, and interventions to further optimize medical education experiences. Overall, this study contributes to the ongoing dialog on medical education, offering a nuanced understanding of the complex factors influencing students\' perceptions and suggesting actionable strategies for improvement.

In this review article four clinical comparative studies in axial spondylarthritis (axSpA) are presented and discussed. SURPASS as the only head-to-head study investigated the effect of adalimumab biosimilar disease-modifying antirheumatic drug (bsDMARD) or secukinumab on radiographic progression over a time period of 2 years. Overall, the radiographic progression of the spine was low and no significant difference between adalimumab bsDMARD or secukinumab was noted. The three other studies were not constructed as direct head-to-head studies but compared the efficacy of non-steroidal antirheumatic drugs (NSARD) with and without simultaneous treatment with biological DMARDs (bDMARD). The CONSUL study showed no statistically significant difference in the delay of radiographic progression of the spine over 2 years in radiographic axSpA (r-axSpA) patients, who underwent either combined treatment with golimumab and celecoxib or treatment with golimumab alone over 2 years. The ESTHER study showed that patients with early axSpA active inflammatory lesions, which were detected by whole-body magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), showed a significantly greater improvement under treatment with etanercept than those treated with sulfasalazine. The INFAST study showed that patients with early active axSpA who received a combined treatment of infliximab and naproxen, achieved a clinical remission twice as frequently as those who only received naproxen. Therefore, for the endpoint of radiological progression no difference could be shown in the inhibition of radiological progression between the mechanisms of action investigated. The comparative data for the endpoint of clinical efficacy showed that patients with bDMARDs showed a clearly better response to treatment than patients with NSAR or conventional synthetic DMARDs (csDMARD).
UNASSIGNED: In dieser Übersichtsarbeit werden 4 klinische Vergleichsstudien in der Indikation axiale Spondyloarthritis (SpA) vorgestellt und diskutiert. Die einzige direkte Vergleichsstudie SURPASS hatte das Ziel, das Aufhalten von röntgenologischer Progression mit entweder Adalimumab bs(Biosimilar)DMARD („disease-modifying antirheumatic drug“) oder Secukinumab über einen Zeitraum von 2 Jahren zu untersuchen. Insgesamt war die röntgenologische Progression der Wirbelsäule über 2 Jahre gering, wobei es keine signifikanten Unterschiede zwischen Adalimumab bsDMARD oder Secukinumab gab. Drei weitere Studien waren nicht direkt als Head-to-head-Studien angelegt, verglichen aber die Wirksamkeit von nichtsteroidalen Antirheumatika (NSAR) mit und ohne gleichzeitige Therapie mit b(„biological“)DMARD. In der CONSUL-Studie zeigte sich kein statistisch signifikanter Unterschied in der Verzögerung der röntgenologischen Progression der Wirbelsäule über 2 Jahre bei r(röntgenologisch)-axSpA(axiale Spondyloarthritis)-Patienten, die entweder eine Kombinationstherapie mit Golimumab und Celecoxib oder eine Golimumab-Monotherapie über 2 Jahre erhalten hatten. Die ESTHER-Studie zeigte, dass sich bei Patienten mit früher axSpA aktive entzündliche Läsionen, die durch Ganzkörper-MRT (Magnetresonanztomographie) nachgewiesen wurden, unter einer Therapie mit Etanercept signifikant stärker als bei mit Sulfasalazin behandelten Patienten verbesserten. Die INFAST-Studie zeigte bei Patienten mit früher, aktiver axSpA, dass Patienten, die eine Kombinationstherapie aus Infliximab und Naproxen erhielten, doppelt so häufig eine klinische Remission erreichten wie Patienten, die nur Naproxen erhielten. Damit konnte für die Endpunkte der Röntgenprogression kein Unterschied in der Hemmung der Röntgenprogression zwischen den untersuchten Wirkprinzipien gezeigt werden. Die Vergleichsdaten für den Endpunkt der klinischen Wirksamkeit zeigten, dass Patienten mit bDMARD ein deutlich besseres Therapieansprechen zeigten als Patienten mit NSAR oder cs(„conventional synthetic“)DMARD.