A Rare Presentation of Intraosseous Sarcoidosis of the Mandible Presenting as Peri-Implantitis: A Case Report and Literature Review.

We describe a rare case of intraosseous sarcoidosis initially presenting as peri-implantitis, perform a review and analysis of 27 cases of intraosseous sarcoidosis, and provide a clinical review of this condition. We searched the literature for patients presenting with intraosseous sarcoidosis of the jaw through June 2020 using key phrases. Additional papers were included via a search of references and citing papers. Data including patient demographic characteristics and diagnostic tests were manually extracted from the cases and then qualitatively coded by the authors. Descriptive statistical analysis was performed to elucidate general themes and characteristics. A total of 27 cases, dating as early as 1943 and as recent as this case, were identified in the literature, including our case. The average age of these patients was 39 years old, with a range of 16 to 75 years. Eighteen (67%) cases were identified as female and nine (33%) as male. Fourteen cases were reported with localized mandibular involvement. Ten had maxillary disease; 3 cases were generalized to both regions. Nine cases presented anteriorly, 12 posteriorly, and 6 extended across both regions. Eight patients received surgical interventions, such as tooth extractions or lesion removal. Five patients received nonsurgical interventions, such as steroids. Ten patients received combination therapy, often involving surgical intervention and steroid therapy. Our patient had an unusual presentation of intraosseous sarcoidosis mimicking peri-implantitis. To our knowledge, no case in the English literature describes a patient with sarcoidosis presenting with peri-implantitis. Based on the literature review and analysis of our patient's experience, sarcoidosis should be considered on the differential diagnosis for patients with persistent, nonhealing bony lesions in the maxillofacial region, particularly when patients have not been exposed to osteoclast inhibitory therapy or radiation. Pathologic analysis of bone and surrounding tissue in these scenarios is essential.

AI and crisis leadership: Using the POP-DOC Loop to explore potential implications and opportunities for leaders.

In the evolving landscape of crisis leadership and emergency management, artificial intelligence (AI) emerges as a potentially transformative force with far-reaching implications. Utilizing the POP-DOC Loop, a comprehensive framework for crisis leadership analysis and decision-making, this paper delves into the diverse roles that AI is poised to play in shaping the future of crisis planning and response. The POP-DOC Loop serves as a structured methodology, encompassing key elements such as information gathering, contextual analysis informed by social determinants, enhanced predictive modeling, guided decision-making, strategic action implementation, and appropriate communication. Rather than offer definitive predictions, this review aims to catalyze exploration and discussion, equipping researchers and practitioners to anticipate future contingencies. The paper concludes by examining the limitations and challenges posed by AI within this specialized context.

Educational Policy Development as a Leadership Experience: Inclusive Institutional Change.

Medical students have a unique opportunity to advocate for educational policies that promote best practices in undergraduate medical education. At the Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, students play a crucial role in the development of medical education policies. This article describes two innovative, inclusive, and effective approaches to increase student engagement: (1) restructuring Medical Education Subcommittees to diversify student perspectives and (2) including students in a values-based design thinking approach to the development of new academic advancement and promotion and conduct policies. Through deliberate participation, medical students gain valuable skills that can be applied as future educators and academic leaders.

Lay understandings of drug-gene interactions: The right medication, the right dose, at the right time, but what are the right words?

As pharmacogenomic (PGx) testing increases in popularity, lay concepts of drug-gene interactions set the stage for shared decision making in precision medicine. Few studies explore what recipients of PGx results think is happening in their bodies when a drug-gene interaction is discovered. To characterize biobank participants' understanding of PGx research results, we conducted a focus group study, which took place after PGx variants conferring increased risk of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase (DPD) deficiency were disclosed to biobank contributors. DPD deficiency confers an increased risk of adverse reaction to commonly used cancer chemotherapeutics. Ten focus groups were conducted, ranging from two to eight participants. Fifty-four individuals participated in focus groups. A framework approach was used for descriptive and explanatory analysis. Descriptive themes included participants' efforts to make sense of PGx findings as they related to: (1) health implications, (2) drugs, and (3) genetics. Explanatory analysis supplied a functional framework of how participant word choices can perform different purposes in PGx communication. Results bear three main implications for PGx research-related disclosure. First, participants' use of various terms suggest participants generally understanding their PGx results, including how positive PGx results differ from positive disease susceptibility genetic results. Second, PGx disclosure in biobanking can involve participant conflation of drug-gene interactions with allergies or other types of medical reactions. Third, the functional framework suggests a need to move beyond a deficit model of genetic literacy in PGx communication. Together, findings provide an initial evidence base for supporting bidirectional expert-recipient PGx results communication.

Communicating unexpected pharmacogenomic results to biobank contributors: A focus group study.

OBJECTIVES: The goals of this study were to explore 1) the impact of returning unexpected pharmacogenomic (PGx) results to biobank contributors, and 2) participant views about improving communication. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative focus group study with biobank participants (N = 54) who were notified by mail of an individual research result indicating increased risk for adverse events associated with the common cancer drug 5-fluorouracil (5-FU). We employed a framework approach for analysis. RESULTS: Our results revealed three themes illustrating participants' questions and uncertainty, especially regarding how to share results with health providers and family members, and remember them over time. Participants valued results for themselves and others, and for the future of medicine. Risk perception was framed by health identity. "Toxicity narratives," or familiarity with another's adverse reaction to chemotherapy, increased the sense of importance participants reported. CONCLUSION: These focus group results highlight research participant remaining questions and high valuation of PGx results, even when unexpected. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: We identify PGx research participants' needs for clear clinical translation messaging that attends to health identity, pragmatics of sharing information with family members, and patient perceptions of barriers to transferring research results to a clinical context.

Experiences of Latino Participants Receiving Neutral Genomic Screening Results: A Qualitative Study.

PURPOSE: The aim of the study was to characterize experiences of Latino participants receiving genomic screening results. METHODS: Participants were recruited at a federally qualified health center in the USA. In-person, semi-structured interviews were conducted in either Spanish or English by a bilingual, bicultural interviewer. Questions focused on motivations for pursuing genomic sequencing, concerns about receiving genomic screening results, and perceived benefits of receiving genomic information. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and translated. RESULTS: Fifty individuals completed an interview; 39 were conducted in Spanish. Participants described mixed motivations for pursuing genomic screening. Participants viewed the benefits of genomic screening in relation to not only their personal health but to the health of their families and their communities. Participants tended to have few concerns about genomic screening. Those concerns related to potential loss of privacy, misuses of genomic information, and the possibility of receiving distressing results. Some participants had misunderstandings about the scope of the test and the potential implications of their results. Most felt it was better to know about a genetic predisposition to disease than to remain uninformed. Participants felt that genomic screening was worthwhile. DISCUSSION: This is one of the first studies to examine the experiences of Latino individuals receiving genomic screening results. Our results suggest that many Latino patients in the US see value in genomic screening and have limited concerns about its potential to cause harm. These results inform ongoing efforts to increase the availability of genomic medicine to underrepresented populations and add to our understanding of sociocultural drivers in the adoption of precision medicine.