Pollution effects on retinal health: A review on current methodologies and findings.

In our daily life, we are exposed to numerous industrial chemicals that may be harmful to the retina, which is a delicate and sensitive part of our eyes. This could lead to irreversible changes and cause retinal diseases or blindness. Current retinal environmental health studies primarily utilize animal models, isolated mammalian retinas, animal- or human-derived retinal cells, and retinal organoids, to address both pre- and postnatal exposure. However, as there is limited toxicological information available for specific populations, human induced pluripotent stem cell (hiPSC)-induced models could be effective tools to supplement such data. In order to obtain more comprehensive and reliable toxicological information, we need more appropriate models, novel evaluation methods, and computational technologies to develop portable equipment. This review mainly focused on current toxicology models with particular emphasis on retinal organoids, and it looks forward to future models, analytical methods, and equipment that can efficiently and accurately evaluate retinal toxicity.

Duration of Living Kidney Transplant Donor Evaluations: Findings From 2 Multicenter Cohort Studies.

BACKGROUND: A prolonged living kidney donor evaluation may result in worse outcomes for transplant recipients. Better knowledge of the duration of this process may help inform future donors and identify opportunities for improvement. STUDY DESIGN: 1 prospective and 1 retrospective cohort study. SETTING & PARTICIPANTS: At 16 Canadian and Australian transplantation centers (prospective cohort) and 5 Ontario transplantation centers (retrospective cohort), we assessed the duration of living kidney donor evaluation and explored donor, recipient, and transplantation factors associated with longer evaluation times. Data were obtained from 2 sources: donor medical records using chart abstraction and health care administrative databases. PREDICTORS: Donor and recipient demographics, direct versus paired donation, center-level variables. OUTCOMES: Duration of living donor evaluation. RESULTS: The median total duration of transplantation evaluation (time from when the candidate started the evaluation until donation) was 10.3 (IQR, 6.5-16.7) months. The median duration from evaluation start until approval to donate was 7.9 (IQR, 4.6-14.1) months, and from approval until donation was 0.7 (IQR, 0.3-2.4) months, respectively. The median time between the first and last consultation among donors who completed a nephrology, surgery, and psychosocial assessment in the prospective cohort was 3.0 (IQR, 1.0-6.3) months, and between computed tomography angiography and donation was 4.8 (IQR, 2.6-9.2) months. After adjustment, the total duration of transplantation evaluation was longer if the donor participated in paired donation (6.6 [95% CI, 1.6-9.7] months) and if the recipient was referred later relative to the donor's evaluation start date (0.9 [95% CI, 0.8-1.0] months [per month of delayed referral]). Results depended on whether the recipient was receiving dialysis. LIMITATIONS: Living donor candidates who did not donate were not included and proxy measures were used for some dates in the donor evaluation process. CONCLUSIONS: The duration of kidney transplant donor evaluation is variable and can be lengthy. Better understanding of the reasons for a prolonged evaluation may inform quality improvement initiatives to reduce unnecessary delays.

Impact of the timing of tumor assessments on median progression-free survival in clinical trials in advanced cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Survival-based surrogate endpoints such as progression-free survival (PFS) are commonly used in oncology clinical trials. The evaluation-time bias in the assessment of median disease progression in randomized trials has been suggested by several simulation studies, but never demonstrated in the clinic. We aimed to demonstrate the existence of potential evaluation-time bias by assessing the impact of the timing of tumor assessments on median PFS from control arms without any active treatment of randomized controlled trials involving advanced cancer patients. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A systematic literature search of English language publications from 1 January 2000 to 7 January 2021 was performed using MEDLINE (PubMed). Eligible trials for our meta-analysis included all randomized clinical trials evaluating anticancer drugs in adult patients with advanced cancers with a control arm without any anticancer drug consisting of best supportive care with or without a placebo. We performed a meta-regression analysis to analyze the correlation between the timing of the first tumor assessment and median PFS in patients randomized in the control arms without any active treatment. RESULTS: Of 3551 studies screened, 97 eligible trials were retrieved involving 36  747 patients, including 14  229 patients randomized into the control arms. A later first tumor assessment correlated with a prolonged median PFS (R2 = 0.44, P < 10-5). CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm the existence of potential evaluation-time bias in clinical research that had been suggested by simulation studies. The timing of tumor assessments should be kept the same in precision medicine trials using the PFS ratio as an efficacy endpoint.

Aesthetic Evaluation of Digitally Reproduced Art Images.

Most people encounter art images as digital reproductions on a computer screen instead of as originals in a museum or gallery. With the development of digital technologies, high-resolution artworks can be accessed anywhere and anytime by a large number of viewers. Since these digital images depict the same content and are attributed to the same artist as the original, it is often implicitly assumed that their aesthetic evaluation will be similar. When it comes to the digital reproductions of art, however, it is also obvious that reproductions do differ from the originals in various aspects. Besides image quality, resolution, and format, the most obvious change is in the representation of color. The effects of subjectively varying surface-level image features on art evaluation have not been clearly assessed. To address this gap, we compare the evaluation of digital reproductions of 16 expressionist and impressionist paintings manipulated to have a high color saturation vs. a saturation similar to the original. We also investigate the impact of viewing time (100 ms vs. unrestricted viewing time) and expertise (art experts vs. laypersons), two other aspects that may impact the perception of art in online contexts. Moreover, we link these dimensions to a recent model of aesthetic experience [the Vienna Integrated Model of Top-Down and Bottom-Up Processes in Art Perception (VIMAP)]. Results suggest that color saturation does not exert a major influence on liking. Cognitive and emotional aspects (interest, confusion, surprise, and boredom), however, are affected - to different extents for experts and laypersons. For laypersons, the increase in color saturation led to more positive assessments of an artwork, whereas it resulted in increased confusion for art experts. This insight is particularly important when it comes to reproducing artworks digitally. Depending on the intended use, increasing or decreasing the color saturation of the digitally reproduced image might be most appropriate. We conclude with a discussion of these findings and address the question of why empirical aesthetics requires more precise dimensions to better understand the subtle processes that take place in the perception of today's digitally reproduced art environment.