Subtle signs, subtle designs: future change andBJR

Chronic Periaortitis

Contrast-enhanced digital breast tomosynthesis (CE-DBT) is a novel modality for imaging breast lesion morphology and vascularity. The purpose of this study is to assess the feasibility of dual-energy subtraction as a technique for CE-DBT (a temporal subtraction CE-DBT technique has been described previously). As CE-DBT evolves, exploration of alternative image acquisition techniques will contribute to its optimisation. Evaluation of dual-energy CE-DBT was conducted with Institutional Review Board (IRB) approval from our institution and in compliance with federal Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) guidelines. A 55-year old patient with a known malignancy in the right breast underwent imaging with MRI and CE-DBT. CE-DBT was performed in the medial lateral oblique view with a DBT system, which was modified under IRB approval to allow high-energy image acquisition with a 0.25 mm Cu filter. Image acquisition occurred via both temporal and dual-energy subtraction CE-DBT. Between the pre- and post-contrast DBT image sets, a single bolus of iodinated contrast agent (1.0 ml kg(-1)) was administered, followed by a 60 ml saline flush. The contrast agent and saline were administrated manually at a rate of approximately 2 ml s(-1). Images were reconstructed using filtered-back projection and transmitted to a clinical PACS workstation. Dual-energy CE-DBT was shown to be clinically feasible. In our index case, the dual-energy technique was able to provide morphology and kinetic information about the known malignancy. This information was qualitatively concordant with that of CE-MRI. Compared with the temporal subtraction CE-DBT technique, dual-energy CE-DBT appears less susceptible to motion artefacts.

Mention medical imaging and most radiologists and medical physicists will think of CT, MRI, ultrasound and nuclear medicine, the techniques that form the backbone of diagnostic radiology. Nevertheless, there are a number of other methods currently under development that are potentially capable of producing extremely valuable functional information. One of these up-andcoming areas is free radical imaging. Although the techniques used are based on MRI, free radical imaging is sufficiently different that many MR physicists and radiologists may be unaware of the methodology and of its potential uses. This commentary describes the techniques currently in use or under development and will highlight some of the biomedical applications for which they have been used and for which they may be used in the future. Free radicals are molecules with one or more unpaired electron in their outer orbitals. A number of related MR methods are used for imaging free radicals, all of which make use of the fact that a free radical’s unpaired electron exhibits a quantum-mechanical spin and therefore has a magnetic moment. This means that an MR signal can be generated in a manner exactly analogous to the detection of hydrogen nuclei (protons) by nuclear magnetic resonance (NMR) in conventional MRI. MR of unpaired electrons is called electron spin resonance (ESR). Substances that have unpaired electrons are termed paramagnetic, thus ESR is also referred to as electron paramagnetic resonance (EPR). The mass of an electron is about three orders of magnitude smaller than that of a proton, therefore the MR properties of the two particles are rather different. In a given strength of applied magnetic field, the ESR frequency is 659 times that of proton NMR. For example, in a magnetic field of 1 T (a common field strength for clinical MRI), the NMR frequency is 42.6 MHz while the ESR frequency would be 28 GHz, well into the microwave part of the electromagnetic spectrum, with strong absorption by conducting samples such as tissue. Owing to this, most biomedical free radical imaging by ESR is carried out using much lower magnetic field strengths, usually between 10 mT and 40 mT, with resonant frequencies between 250 MHz and 1 GHz, which can penetrate a few centimetres into tissues allowing at least small animals to be studied. Another difference between ESR and NMR is that the electron relaxation times of free radicals are very short, typically between 0.1 ms and 1 ms, a million times shorter than those encountered in clinical MRI. As a result, most ESR spectroscopy and imaging is done using ‘‘continuous wave’’ (CW) detection methods. Instead of applying a pulse of radiowave energy and waiting for the transient response, as in clinical MRI, in CW ESR the sample is continuously irradiated with low intensity electromagnetic radiation and the resonant response of the unpaired electrons is measured by slowly increasing the strength of the applied magnetic field. When an ESR is encountered, the combined effect of the unpaired electrons (the ‘‘electron magnetization’’) alters the electrical properties of the resonator used to apply the radiowaves and a reflected signal can be measured. To obtain spatial information about the sample, a magnetic field gradient is applied continuously during the magnetic field sweep. An image is built up by back-projecting a series of one-dimensional projections of the sample, obtained by measuring the ESR signal repeatedly, with the direction of the applied magnetic field gradient stepped in small increments [1]. Perhaps the greatest technical difficulty of the CW ESR method is its extreme sensitivity to physiological motion of the animal under study, which results in both increased noise and image artefacts. One solution is to use sophisticated electronics to correct for changes brought about by animal motion, but in fact the problem can be almost completely alleviated by using an alternative detection scheme called longitudinallydetected ESR (LODESR). In this method, the sample is irradiated with electromagnetic radiation close to the desired resonant frequency (say 300 MHz), the intensity of which is modulated at a much lower frequency (say 0.5 MHz). This causes the unpaired electron magnetization to Received 29 November 2000 and accepted 25 May 2001. The British Journal of Radiology, 74 (2001), 782–784 E 2001 The British Institute of Radiology

Instructions to AuthorsPublished Online:29 May 2014https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-37-443-880SectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail AboutAbstractCommunications should ordinarily be addressed to the Honorary Editors, The British Journal of Radiology, 32 Welbeck Street, London, W.1.Communications from overseas should preferably be submitted to the most appropriate of the following Associate Editors:Dr. A. C. Begg, Public Hospital, Dunedin, New Zealand. Previous article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 37, Issue 443November 1964Pages: 805-880 © The British Institute of Radiology History Published onlineMay 29,2014 Metrics Download PDF

Instructions to AuthorsPublished Online:29 May 2014https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-38-446-160SectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail AboutAbstractCommunications should ordinarily be addressed to the Honorary Editors, The British Journal of Radiology, 23 Welbeck Street, London, W.1.Communications from overseas should preferably be submitted to the most appropriate of the following Associate Editors:Dr. A. C. Begg, Public Hospital, Dunedin, New Zealand.Professor H. E. Johns, The Ontario Cancer Institute, 500 Sherbourne Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Dr. H. A. Luke, The Alfred Hospital, Prahran, S.1, Victoria, Australia. Previous article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 38, Issue 446February 1965Pages: 81-160 © The British Institute of Radiology History Published onlineMay 29,2014 Metrics Download PDF

Instructions to authorsPublished Online:28 Jan 2014https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-35-418-724SectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail AboutAbstractCommunications should ordinarily be addressed to the Honorary Editors, The British Journal of Radiology, 32 Welbeck Street, London, W.1.Communications from overseas should preferably be submitted to the most appropriate of the following Associate Editors:Dr. A. C. Begg, Public Hospital, Dunedin, New Zealand. Previous article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 35, Issue 418October 1962Pages: 653-724 © The British Institute of Radiology History Published onlineJanuary 28,2014 Metrics Download PDF

Instructions to authorsPublished Online:29 May 2014https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-36-427-544SectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail AboutAbstractCommunications should ordinarily be addressed to the Honorary Editors, The British Journal of Radiology, 32 Welbeck Street, London, W.1.Communications from overseas should preferably be submitted to the most appropriate of the following Associate Editors:Dr. A. C. Begg, Public Hospital, Dunedin, New Zealand. Previous article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 36, Issue 427July 1963Pages: 465-544 © The British Institute of Radiology History Published onlineMay 29,2014 Metrics Download PDF

Instructions to authorsPublished Online:28 Jan 2014https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-35-411-220SectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail AboutAbstractCommunications should ordinarily be addressed to the Honorary Editors, The British Journal of Radiology, 32 Welbeck Street, London, W.1.Communications from overseas should preferably be submitted to the most appropriate of the following Associate Editors:Dr. A. C. Begg, Public Hospital, Dunedin, New Zealand.Professor H. E. Johns, The Ontario Cancer Institute, 500 Sherbourne Street, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.Dr. H. A. Luke, The Alfred Hospital, Prahran S.1, Victoria, Australia. Previous article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 35, Issue 411March 1962Pages: 149-220 © The British Institute of Radiology History Published onlineJanuary 28,2014 Metrics Download PDF

Instructions to authorsPublished Online:29 May 2014https://doi.org/10.1259/0007-1285-37-436-324SectionsPDF/EPUB ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack Citations ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InEmail AboutAbstractCommunications should ordinarily be addressed to the Honorary Editors, The British Journal of Radiology, 32 Welbeck Street, London, W.I.Communications from overseas should preferably be submitted to the most appropriate of the followingAssociate Editors:Dr. A. C. Begg, Public Hospital, Dunedin, New Zealand. Previous article FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 37, Issue 436April 1964Pages: 245-324 © The British Institute of Radiology History Published onlineMay 29,2014 Metrics Download PDF

Diffusion weighted imaging is a promising method to detect acute pyelonephritis in non-sedated free breathing infants

Message from the Editor

The Journal in 2016.

During the past decade, the technological changes in scientific publishing have been remarkable. The ability to move scientific manuscripts through the review and editing processes electronically has been a breakthrough in efficiency that once seemed unimaginable. The fact that entire journals—such as this one—exist entirely in electronic format is also a breakthrough. However, as with any new technology, challenges and questions emerge in the wake of the increases in efficiency that we enjoy. One of the key challenges organizations such as The Wildlife Society face is how to develop an understanding of how new technology is affecting the basic model of scientific publishing. Traditional models of scientific publication historically revolved around professional societies that organized peer-reviewed scientific journals focused on some area of scientific specialization. Many of these societies were organized in the late 19th or early 20th century and have developed collective reputations for excellence in their publications. Having subscription-based journals run by professional societies was the model for peer-reviewed scientific publishing for more than a century. This was the case until about a decade ago, when the game changed with the advent of the Public Library of Science (PLoS) in 2006 and “open-access” scientific publishing. The open-access content that was largely pioneered by PLoS has taken the scientific publishing world by storm. It is based on an “author pays” business model, without charging readers or libraries a subscription fee to access the published papers. As you might imagine, the idea of providing free access to peer-reviewed scientific papers became very popular very quickly. For example, in 2010, the journal PLoS ONE published nearly 7,000 biology and medicine articles, and it had an impact factor 3 times greater than The Journal of Wildlife Management. With only 5 years of publication, PLoS ONE became the largest life science journal in the world. The open-access concept clearly revolutionized scientific publishing, and it did so virtually overnight. Obviously, the explosion of open-access journals during the past decade presents a challenge to traditional subscription-based scientific publications. However, there are some potential problems in the apparent paradise of open-access publishing. The open-access publication model pioneered by PLoS is not without critics. For example, because open-access journals are driven by an author-pays economic model, they have a potential conflict of interest that can compromise peer-review standards; by accepting more articles, the journal generates more revenue. The acceptance rate of articles in PLoS ONE is about 70%, which is much higher than most traditional peer-reviewed journals published by scientific societies. Another criticism is that after publication in open-access journals such as PLoS ONE, articles are subjected to community-based peer review that involves online annotation and additional comments from readers. At first, such direct involvement between authors and readers might seem refreshing, but it also has the potential to short-circuit the more deliberative point–counter-point process used to challenge traditional scientific articles that appear in print or secure electronic format, such as the Wildlife Society Bulletin. While not necessarily a criticism, it is important to note journals like those in the PLoS series are not linked with a particular scientific society. Thus, professional benefits of publishing in an open-access journal such as PLoS ONE begin and end with publication. This brings us full circle to the title of this editorial. While the open-access scientific publishing model is with us to stay, we believe that there is still a strong and important niche for traditional scientific publications linked to professional societies. This niche not only involves subscription-based peer-reviewed journals that publish high-quality articles, it also involves a suite of member services that are useful—and we would argue even essential—as one moves along the career arc of their profession. The Wildlife Society, which has recently experienced healthy growth (membership is at an all-time high), has done so by providing such member services as The Wildlife Professional, frequent e-news bulletins to members, technical reviews, a book publication series, position statements on controversial issues, outstanding annual conferences in diverse geographic locations, and a network of sections and chapters for members to become involved with projects and initiatives at regional and local scales. Open-access journals, although they indeed publish massive amounts of material, provide none of these other important professional services. So, if you are reading this and you are not a member of The Wildlife Society, please join! Or, if you are a member of The Wildlife Society, but do not have a subscription to Wildlife Society Bulletin, please subscribe! Please also note that some new guidelines for Authors, Associate Editors, and Reviewers of manuscripts for Wildlife Society Bulletin appear at the end of this issue.

Challenges and opportunities of electronic publishing

Acta Diabetologica has gone through a number of important changes this past year. First, and for the better, its Impact Factor enjoyed an impressive rise. Second, more worryingly, its authoritative and well-experienced Editorsin-Chief stepped down after achieving this rewarding result. Fortunately, Professors Guido Pozza and Renato Lauro, to whom heartfelt thanks are due for their steady guidance of the journal, will continue to make their experience available as Founding Editor and Honorary Editor, respectively. Thirdly, having been established in 1964 as Acta Diabetologica Latina, the journal celebrates its 50th birthday and is the oldest active diabetes journal in Europe. It is with such awesome thoughts in mind that this new Editor-in-Chief took charge last June. His predecessors led Acta Diabetologica to first league among Endocrine and Metabolism publications and entrusted him with the ability to continue their good work. Some of the action to this effect will go under the sign of continuity and some will have to take note of changing times. Rigorous selection of the manuscripts received by the Editorial Office will continue to be enforced, jointly with the two long-serving Managing Editors, Professors Massimo Federici and Antonio Secchi, and with old and new members of the Editorial and Advisory Boards. We shall have to be tough and maintain the current 80 % rejection rate. However, more importantly, we shall strive to be as fair as possible. This Editorial Board believes that quality is more important than quantity and that publishing good articles is better than publishing few articles. No good papers left behind should be our motto, probably not shared by all those authors who will see their submissions rejected. Alas, journal Editors do not make many friends! But a good Impact Factor is not all there is to life of journals, editors, authors, and publishers. More important is the choice of an editorial line that will do its modest share to genuinely stimulate original research in the field of human diabetes and metabolism. This may sound matter of fact but a number of signals emerging from the world of science should be taken very seriously indeed. Karl Popper based his view of scientific progress on the concept of ‘‘Falschungsmoglichkeit’’ or empirical falsification of data, meaning that current wisdom can constantly be proven false when newer concepts are applied to previous knowledge and suggesting that science tends to evolve by correcting itself [1]. But in Popper’s time, scientific research was still an educated hobby for affluent gentlemen. In his ‘‘Gattopardo,’’ Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa provides us with the memorable description of a Sicilian prince who, among other nightly enjoyments, could afford a private observatory to explore the terse skies above his land and even discover one or two new celestial objects, which he duly communicated to the learned societies of his day [2]. Until perhaps the first half of the twentieth century, many new things could be described with a lot of amateurial dedication, sharp intelligence, and relatively affordable means. Today, research is a profession, costly, competitive and requiring complex technical skills, deep knowledge and full-time dedication. Rewards derive mostly from the dissemination of one’s own results, and in today’s ‘‘publish or perish’’ environment, powerful forces tend to derail research(ers) from pursuing the straight line of advancement of knowledge for the ultimate benefit of mankind. Pressure to publish is sometimes stronger than prudence. Staff at a leading biotech firm were able to replicate the results of only 6 out of 53 landmark papers in cancer [3] M. Porta (&) Department of Medical Sciences, University of Turin, Turin, Italy e-mail: massimo.porta@unito.it