Protocol for in vivo elimination of avian auditory hair cells, multiplexed mRNA detection, immunohistochemistry, and S-phase labeling.

The avian inner ear can naturally regenerate sensory hair cells and is therefore an ideal candidate for investigating mechanisms leading to hair cell regeneration and functional recovery. Here, we present a surgical protocol for eliminating auditory hair cells via sisomicin injection into the lateral semicircular canal. We describe steps for multiplex mRNA detection in chicken basilar papilla and utricle sections. We then detail procedures for integrating immunohistochemistry for concurrent mRNA and protein visualization, complemented by S-phase labeling with EdU. For complete details on the use and execution of this protocol, please refer to Benkafadar et al., Benkafadar et al., Sato et al., Janesick et al., Scheibinger et al.1,2,3,4,5.

Patient Opinions and Side Effects Before and After General Anesthesia for Surgery.

As the number of surgical procedures performed the world over continues to increase, so does the number of anesthetic procedures needed for those surgeries to occur. While much thought and research has been focused on the perspective of the anesthesiologist, little has been explored from the perspective of the patient receiving anesthesia. The purpose of this study was to explore the general public's opinions and experiences of general anesthesia, as well as any change in their perception after having undergone a procedure requiring it. We decided that further inquiry into the subject was warranted, and we decided to run an online Qualtrics survey in order to make that inquiry. The key takeaway from our online anonymous survey shows that there is a significant amount of anxiety related to anesthesia, but that most people specify a large decrease in said anxiety after having undergone the procedure. Noticeably, people were made more comfortable by discussing anesthesia with people who had lived through the experience, and people believed they would be significantly comforted by the presence of therapy animals prior to beginning their procedures. We hope that our exploratory research will promote future research into this topic in order to improve the healthcare outcomes of a significant number of patients. We believe that this data has opened up many potential avenues for further exploration and research, as well as potentially being able to guide surgical practice.

Characterization of Research Mentorship During Medical School for Future Radiation Oncology Trainees.

Purpose: Medical student access to radiation oncology (RO) research opportunities is important for stimulating interest in the specialty. The purpose of this study was to assess the publication record during medical school of students who ultimately matched in RO, to characterize the source(s) of their RO mentorship relative to other specialties. Methods and Materials: We performed web-based searches to identify manuscripts published during medical school (defined as being published from January 2016 to December 2019) for all RO residents with postgraduate year 2 status in 2020 to 2021. Students with a PhD degree and international graduates were excluded. Characteristics of these publications, the student, and the primary mentor, were assessed. Results: A total of 435 publications were authored by the 148 included residents. In total, 115 (78%) attended a medical school with an affiliated RO residency program. The median number of publications per student was 2 (interquartile range, 1-4), and students' median byline author position was 2 (interquartile range, 1-4). In total, 351 publications (80.7%) were on a cancer-related topic, with 234 (53.8%) published in oncology-oriented journal, and 96 (22.0%) published in RO-oriented journals. There were 294 unique mentors, with 70 mentors (24%) on 2 or more student publications. Most mentors (n = 187, 64%) shared the same institution as the student. Mentors were most commonly radiation oncologists/radiation biologists/medical physicists (n = 153, 52.6%), surgical subspecialists (n = 53, 21%), and medical oncologists (n = 18, 6.2%). Students working with primary RO mentors were more likely to publish in an oncology-oriented journal (79.1% vs 18.2%, P < .01) or RO-oriented journal (36.2% vs 2.2%, P < .01), compared with students working with non-RO mentors, respectively. A higher percentage of publications with RO mentors occurred in the last 2 years of medical school compared with the first 2 years (64.0% vs 40.9%, respectively, P < .01). Conclusions: Approximately one-half of student publications among future RO residents are published in nononcology journals, and result from mentoring relationships with non-RO physicians.

Assessment of Medical Student Research Mentorship in Radiation Oncology.

Purpose: Mentored medical student (MS) research opportunities in radiation oncology (RO) provide in-depth exposure to the specialty and may promote greater interest in a career in RO. Many radiation oncologists conduct research; however, the extent to which they directly engage MSs in their research is unknown. The purpose of this study was to characterize MS authorship in American Society for Radiation Oncology (ASTRO) journals. Methods and Materials: The byline and abstract of all scientific articles (ie, clinical, basic science, training/education) and case reports published from 2019 to 2021 in the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics; Practical Radiation Oncology; and Advances in Radiation Oncology were reviewed. Characteristics of MSs and senior authors are reported. Results: A total of 105 of 1785 articles (5.8%) included an MS author, among which 72 (68.6%) were clinical, 13 training/education (12.4%), 12 case reports (11.4%), and 8 basic science (7.6%). MS authors were more common for publications in Advances in Radiation Oncology (9.0%) than Practical Radiation Oncology (6.4%) or the International Journal of Radiation Oncology, Biology, and Physics (4.2%; P = .002). There were 125 unique MS authors from 72 institutions, among which 40 were first author (32.0%), 28 second author (22.4%), and 57 third (or higher) author (45.6%). There were 88 unique senior authors from 55 institutions, among which 10 (11.3%) were on 2 or more MS publications, and 57 (64.7%) shared the same institution as the MS. The median number of articles per mentor institution was 1 (interquartile range, 1-2), and the mentor institutions in the upper quartile in terms of number of MS publications accounted for 53 (50.5%) of all MS publications. Conclusions: Few publications in American Society for Radiation Oncology journals include MS authors with mentorship disproportionately from a small number of academic faculty at select institutions. These findings suggest that there is great potential for radiation oncologists to proactively engage more students in their work.