RESUMO
Anticipating, identifying, and prioritizing strategic needs represent essential activities by research organizations. Decided benefits emerge when these pursuits engage globally important environment and health goals, including the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. To this end, horizon scanning efforts can facilitate identification of specific research needs to address grand challenges. We report and discuss 40 priority research questions following engagement of scientists and engineers in North America. These timely questions identify the importance of stimulating innovation and developing new methods, tools, and concepts in environmental chemistry and toxicology to improve assessment and management of chemical contaminants and other diverse environmental stressors. Grand challenges to achieving sustainable management of the environment are becoming increasingly complex and structured by global megatrends, which collectively challenge existing sustainable environmental quality efforts. Transdisciplinary, systems-based approaches will be required to define and avoid adverse biological effects across temporal and spatial gradients. Similarly, coordinated research activities among organizations within and among countries are necessary to address the priority research needs reported here. Acquiring answers to these 40 research questions will not be trivial, but doing so promises to advance sustainable environmental quality in the 21st century. Environ Toxicol Chem 2019;38:1606-1624. © 2019 The Authors. Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of SETAC.
Assuntos
Conservação dos Recursos Naturais , Ecotoxicologia , Pesquisa , Conservação dos Recursos Naturais/economia , Conservação dos Recursos Naturais/métodos , Conservação dos Recursos Naturais/tendências , Humanos , América do Norte , Desenvolvimento SustentávelRESUMO
A 5-year review of an active-duty service member population found increased costs, prevalence, and incidence of sleep-disordered breathing.
Assuntos
Escolha da Profissão , Medicina Geral/educação , Medicina Interna/educação , Atenção Primária à Saúde , Consultores , Previsões , Necessidades e Demandas de Serviços de Saúde/tendências , Humanos , Internato e Residência , Minnesota , Relações Médico-Paciente , Especialização , Recursos HumanosAssuntos
Medicaid/economia , Medicaid/legislação & jurisprudência , Medicare/economia , Medicare/legislação & jurisprudência , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/economia , Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act/legislação & jurisprudência , Política , Controle de Custos/economia , Controle de Custos/legislação & jurisprudência , Humanos , Estados UnidosAssuntos
Alocação de Recursos para a Atenção à Saúde/economia , Alocação de Recursos para a Atenção à Saúde/tendências , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/economia , Acessibilidade aos Serviços de Saúde/tendências , Transplante de Órgãos/tendências , Medicina Regenerativa/economia , Medicina Regenerativa/tendências , Controle de Custos/tendências , Previsões , Humanos , Minnesota , Transplante de Órgãos/economiaRESUMO
PURPOSE: Currently, radiologic response of brain tumors is assessed according to the Macdonald criteria 10 weeks from the start of therapy. There exists a critical need to identify nonresponding patients early in the course of their therapy for consideration of alternative treatment strategies. Our study assessed the effectiveness of the parametric response map (PRM) imaging biomarker to provide for an earlier measure of patient survival prediction. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Forty-five high-grade glioma patients received concurrent chemoradiation. Quantitative MRI including apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) and relative cerebral blood volume (rCBV) maps were acquired pretreatment and 3 weeks midtreatment on a prospective institutional-approved study. PRM, a voxel-by-voxel image analysis method, was evaluated as an early prognostic biomarker of overall survival. Clinical and conventional MR parameters were also evaluated. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis showed that PRM(ADC+) in combination with PRM(rCBV-) obtained at week 3 had a stronger correlation to 1-year and overall survival rates than any baseline clinical or treatment response imaging metric. The composite biomarker identified three distinct patient groups, nonresponders [median survival (MS) of 5.5 months, 95% CI: 4.4-6.6 months], partial responders (MS of 16 months, 95% CI: 8.6-23.4 months), and responders (MS has not yet been reached). CONCLUSIONS: Inclusion of PRM(ADC+) and PRM(rCBV-) into a single imaging biomarker metric provided early identification of patients resistant to standard chemoradiation. In comparison to the current standard of assessment of response at 10 weeks (Macdonald criteria), the composite PRM biomarker potentially provides a useful opportunity for clinicians to identify patients who may benefit from alternative treatment strategies.