Does conventional early life academic excellence predict later life scientific discovery? An assessment of the lives of great medical innovators.

BACKGROUND: Perhaps, as never before, we need innovators. With our growing population numbers, and with increasing pressures on our education systems, are we in danger of becoming more rigid and formulaic and increasingly inhibiting innovation? When young can we predict who will become the great innovators? For example, in medicine, who will change clinical practice? AIMS: We therefore determined to assess whether the current academic excellence approach to medical school entrance would have captured previous great innovators in medicine, assuming that they should all have well fulfilled current entrance requirements. METHODS: The authors assembled a list of 100 great medical innovators which was then approved, rejected or added to by a jury of 12 MD fellows of the Royal Society of Canada. Two reviewers, who had taken both the past and present Medical College Admission Test as part of North American medical school entrance requirements, independently assessed each innovator's early life educational history in order to predict the innovator's likely success at medical school entry, assuming excellence in all entrance requirements. RESULTS: Thirty-one percent of the great medical innovators possessed no medical degree and 24% would likely be denied entry to medical school by today's standards (e.g. had a history of poor performance, failure, dropout or expulsion) with only 24% being guaranteed entry. Even if excellence in only one topic was required, the figure would only rise to 41% certain of medical school entry. CONCLUSION: These data show that today's medical school entry standards would have barred many great innovators and raise questions about whether we are losing medical innovators as a consequence. Our findings have important implications for promoting flexibility and innovation for medical education, and for promoting an environment for innovation in general.

The effect of a dietary portfolio compared to a DASH-type diet on blood pressure.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Compared to a DASH-type diet, an intensively applied dietary portfolio reduced diastolic blood pressure at 24 weeks as a secondary outcome in a previous study. Due to the importance of strategies to reduce blood pressure, we performed an exploratory analysis pooling data from intensively and routinely applied portfolio treatments from the same study to assess the effect over time on systolic, diastolic and mean arterial pressure (MAP), and the relation to sodium (Na(+)), potassium (K(+)), and portfolio components. METHODS AND RESULTS: 241 participants with hyperlipidemia, from four academic centers across Canada were randomized and completed either a DASH-type diet (control n = 82) or a dietary portfolio that included, soy protein, viscous fibers and nuts (n = 159) for 24 weeks. Fasting measures and 7-day food records were obtained at weeks 0, 12 and 24, with 24-h urines at weeks 0 and 24. The dietary portfolio reduced systolic, diastolic and mean arterial blood pressure compared to the control by 2.1 mm Hg (95% CI, 4.2 to -0.1 mm Hg) (p = 0.056), 1.8 mm Hg (CI, 3.2 to 0.4 mm Hg) (p = 0.013) and 1.9 mm Hg (CI, 3.4 to 0.4 mm Hg) (p = 0.015), respectively. Blood pressure reductions were small at 12 weeks and only reached significance at 24 weeks. Nuts, soy and viscous fiber all related negatively to change in mean arterial pressure (ρ = -0.15 to -0.17, p ≤ 0.016) as did urinary potassium (ρ = -0.25, p = 0.001), while the Na(+)/K(+) ratio was positively associated (ρ = 0.20, p = 0.010). CONCLUSIONS: Consumption of a cholesterol-lowering dietary portfolio also decreased blood pressure by comparison with a healthy DASH-type diet. CLINICAL TRIAL REG. NO.: NCT00438425, clinicaltrials.gov.

The relation of low glycaemic index fruit consumption to glycaemic control and risk factors for coronary heart disease in type 2 diabetes.

AIMS/HYPOTHESIS: Sugar has been suggested to promote obesity, diabetes and coronary heart disease (CHD), yet fruit, despite containing sugars, may also have a low glycaemic index (GI) and all fruits are generally recommended for good health. We therefore assessed the effect of fruit with special emphasis on low GI fruit intake in type 2 diabetes. METHODS: This secondary analysis involved 152 type 2 diabetic participants treated with glucose-lowering agents who completed either 6 months of high fibre or low GI dietary advice, including fruit advice, in a parallel design. RESULTS: Change in low GI fruit intake ranged from -3.1 to 2.7 servings/day. The increase in low GI fruit intake significantly predicted reductions in HbA(1c) (r = -0.206, p =0.011), systolic blood pressure (r = -0.183, p = 0.024) and CHD risk (r = -0.213, p = 0.008). Change in total fruit intake ranged from -3.7 to 3.2 servings/day and was not related to study outcomes. In a regression analysis including the eight major carbohydrate foods or classes of foods emphasised in the low GI diet, only low GI fruit and bread contributed independently and significantly to predicting change in HbA(1c). Furthermore, comparing the highest with the lowest quartile of low GI fruit intake, the percentage change in HbA(1c) was reduced by -0.5% HbA(1c) units (95% CI 0.2-0.8 HbA(1c) units, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION: Low GI fruit consumption as part of a low GI diet was associated with lower HbA(1c), blood pressure and CHD risk and supports a role for low GI fruit consumption in the management of type 2 diabetes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT00438698.