A market for alternative brominated flame retardants (BFRs) has emerged recently due to the phase out of persistent and inherently toxic BFRs. Several of these replacement compounds have been detected in environmental matrices, including wild birds. A chicken embryonic hepatocyte (CEH) assay was utilized to assess the effects of the BFR, tetrabromobisphenol-A (TBBPA), and its replacement alternative, tetrabromobisphenol A bis(2,3-dibromopropyl ether [TBBPA-DBPE]) on cell viability and messenger ribonucleic acid (mRNA) expression. Bisphenol A (BPA) and 1 of its replacement alternatives, bisphenol S (BPS), were also screened for effects. Both TBBPA and BPA decreased CEH viability with calculated median lethal concentration (LC50) values of 40.6 μM and 61.7 μM, respectively. However, the replacement alternatives, TBBPA-DBPE and BPS, did not affect cell viability (up to 300 μM). Effects on mRNA expression were determined using an Avian ToxChip polymerse chain reaction (PCR) array and a real-time (RT)-PCR assay for the estrogen-responsive genes, apolipoproteinII (ApoII) and vitellogenin (Vtg). A luciferase reporter gene assay was used to assess dioxin-like effects. Tetrabromobisphenol-A altered mRNA levels of 4 genes from multiple toxicity pathways and increased luciferase activity in the luciferase reporter gene assay, whereas its alternative, TBBPA-DBPE, only altered 1 gene on the array, Cyp1a4, and increased luciferase activity. At 300 μM, a concentration that decreased cell viability for TBBPA and BPA, the BPA replacement, BPS, altered the greatest number of transcripts, including both ApoII and Vtg. Bisphenol A exposure did not alter any genes on the array but did up-regulate Vtg at 10 μM. Characterization of the potential toxicological and molecular-level effects of these compounds will ideally be useful to chemical regulators tasked with assessing the risk of new and existing chemicals.

We present two experiments that examine structural priming in the single-trial phone-call paradigm introduced by Levelt and Kelter (Cognitive psychology, 14 (1), 1982). Experimenters called businesses and asked either What time do you close? or At what time do you close? Participants were more likely to produce a prepositional response (At 7 o'clock vs. 7 o'clock) following a prepositional question than following a non-prepositional question. Experiments 1 and 2 attempted to strengthen the priming effect by having the experimenters engage in a brief interaction with the participant before asking the What time…? question. The interactions did not reliably affect the observed priming effect. An analysis across experiments demonstrated that the priming effect found in this paradigm is generally smaller than the average structural priming effect (as reported in Mahowald,

Dementia diagnosis and care relies on extensive communication between a doctor, patient, and oftentimes a family caregiver. Communication is important for recognizing when there is a cognitive concern, gaining an understanding of the patient’s history of cognitive decline, engaging in cognitive testing, and providing quality care post-diagnosis. We conducted a qualitative study of 35 primary care clinicians and primary care nurse practitioners working in safety net settings in California to understand facilitators and barriers to dementia diagnosis and care. Using thematic analysis, we identified similar themes to those that have been explored extensively related to language and communication in doctor-patient relationship. Topics ranging from challenges that emerge when there is language discordance, difficulties finding and using interpreters, and challenges related to communicating medical topics in a patient’s native language. Specifically related to dementia, we found that language challenges emerge due to inadequate translation or availability of cognitive testing and post-diagnostic resources in multiple languages. However, we also identified unique challenges related to communication, including hearing loss, communicating about trauma during the diagnostic history interview, navigating the logistics of care, including communicating with specialists, building trust and rapport when there is language discordance, and cultural miscommunication even when the spoken language is the same. These issues affect historically marginalized individuals and communities, especially when dementia and cognitive impairment are present. We suggest new approaches and policies to enhance communication and better ways of working with patients who are hard of hearing.

No abstract

AIMS As COVID-19 continues to spread globally, the urgency for effective diagnostic testing escalates. Medical imaging has revolutionized healthcare as a critical step to early diagnosis, leading to immediate isolation and optimized treatment pathways. Current imaging modalities such as the lung ultrasound, chest X-ray, and computed tomography (CT) scan are critical in COVID-19 detection. However, overlap in clinical characteristics with other viral respiratory illnesses poses a significant risk for misdiagnosis. METHODOLOGY To address the need for information concerning the effectiveness of Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) diagnostic procedures, this paper reviews different imaging modalities, evaluating various factors including sensitivity, specificity, cost, diagnosis time, accessibility, safety, ease of implementation, and potential for optimization. The literature search reviewed databases including PubMed, Google Scholar, Sonography Canada, Cochrane Review, and Novanet using keywords to filter results. A utilitarian approach was employed to further refine selection criteria and to assess credibility and relevance. Applicable data was then extracted from literature for analysis considering the relationships between studies. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS The imaging modalities reviewed in this paper each have unique advantages. The lung ultrasound, with moderate sensitivity, permits regular monitoring due to its accessibility. Chest X-rays are effective at processing detailed images of the lungs to detect abnormalities but are not confirmed as a precise method for diagnosis. While CT scans show morphological features of COVID-19 with superior sensitivity, it is incapable of accurately differentiating coronavirus from other pulmonary diseases. Overall, a multimodality approach would be most effective for COVID-19 diagnosis and monitoring, preventing over dependence on CT scans.