Point of care ultrasound (POCUS) has become an increasingly common diagnostic tool in the clinical environment. As a result, it is being used earlier for medical students in Undergraduate Medical Education (UME) as a learning tool for the basic sciences including gross anatomy. There is little literature, however, to support its utility for basic science education in students currently seeking a bachelor's degree. This study consisted of fourteen currently enrolled bachelor students with previous instruction in human anatomy and physiology. Students participated in an ultrasound didactic and an interactive ultrasound experience with volunteers. Before and after this session, students were asked to complete an assessment measuring their spatial understanding of the human anatomy and their ability to locate structures using ultrasound. Wilcoxon's signed-rank tests comparing assessment scores showed significant improvement on both portions of the assessment. Based on this improvement, we suggest that ultrasound is a valid educational tool which can be used at the bachelor-level to effectively enhance students' learning of anatomy and provide hands on experience with modern technology. Further research with larger samples will be necessary to determine whether it would supplement or replace more traditional teaching modalities.

Background Deep learning-based radiological image analysis could facilitate use of chest x-rays as a triaging tool for COVID-19 diagnosis in resource-limited settings. This study sought to determine whether a modified commercially available deep learning algorithm (M-qXR) could risk stratify patients with suspected COVID-19 infections. Methods A dual track clinical validation study was designed to assess the clinical accuracy of M-qXR. The algorithm evaluated all Chest-X-rays (CXRs) performed during the study period for abnormal findings and assigned a COVID-19 risk score. Four independent radiologists served as radiological ground truth. The M-qXR algorithm output was compared against radiological ground truth and summary statistics for prediction accuracy were calculated. In addition, patients who underwent both PCR testing and CXR for suspected COVID-19 infection were included in a co-occurrence matrix to assess the sensitivity and specificity of the M-qXR algorithm. Results 625 CXRs were included in the clinical validation study. 98% of total interpretations made by M-qXR agreed with ground truth (p = 0.25). M-qXR correctly identified the presence or absence of pulmonary opacities in 94% of CXR interpretations. M-qXR's sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for detecting pulmonary opacities were 94%, 95%, 99%, and 88% respectively. M-qXR correctly identified the presence or absence of pulmonary consolidation in 88% of CXR interpretations (p = 0.48). M-qXR's sensitivity, specificity, PPV, and NPV for detecting pulmonary consolidation were 91%, 84%, 89%, and 86% respectively. Furthermore, 113 PCR-confirmed COVID-19 cases were used to create a co-occurrence matrix between M-qXR's COVID-19 risk score and COVID-19 PCR test results. The PPV and NPV of a medium to high COVID-19 risk score assigned by M-qXR yielding a positive COVID-19 PCR test result was estimated to be 89.7% and 80.4% respectively. Conclusion M-qXR was found to have comparable accuracy to radiological ground truth in detecting radiographic abnormalities on CXR suggestive of COVID-19.

No abstract

No abstract

Background: Prostatic artery embolization (PAE) has emerged as a treatment option in the management of lower urinary tract symptoms (LUTS) secondary to benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Management guidelines addressing PAE remain mixed with recommendations for more long-term trials comparing the procedure to standard therapies. Materials and Methods:This review presents PAE indications and technical considerations. To evaluate recent updates to the PAE evidence base, a limited literature search of the last 2 years was conducted. Three recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs), comparing PAE to either transurethral resection of the prostate (TURP) or sham procedure, were identified and analyzed.Results: PAE and TURP performed similarly in significant reductions in international prostate symptoms score (IPSS) and Quality of life (QoL) scoring at 3 and 12 months. The majority of improvement after PAE occurred within a few months, with potentially greater effect in patients with larger prostates and severe symptoms. TURP was generally superior in functional outcomes such as peak urinary flow (Qmax), prostate volume (PV) reduction and post void residual (PVR), although TURP patients underperformed in Qmax improvement in one trial. PAE was superior to sham procedure in all relevant outcomes at 6 months. Overall, complication rates were lower with PAE than with TURP.Conclusions: PAE and TURP produced similar significant improvements in LUTS. Functional improvements favored TURP while complication rates favored PAE. Clinical improvement after PAE significantly surpassed initial placebo effects of sham procedure. Further comparative studies with longer term follow-up are still needed.