Clemson University psychologist Eric Muth sees motion sickness as potential fallout from high-end technology that once was limited to the commercial marketplace moving to consumer use in gaming devices.
Microsoft's Kinect is the latest example of technology with the potential to use a helmet-mounted display to immerse the gamer in a 3D virtual world. It uses sensors and software to detect body movement and positioning to control responses in a game environment, although he said the risk of motion sickness from Kinect itself likely is low.
"What was once limited to the military and high-tech research, where users were screened and monitored for negative reactions, is available now to the public," said Muth, who is director of Clemson's Human Factors Institute. "You're not talking about carefully selected users like pilots and astronauts. Anybody with a few hundred dollars to spend can use it and the access will spread. The downside could be that people sensitive to visual disorders and susceptible to motion sickness suffer symptoms ranging from nausea to seizures. There needs to be a lot more research into the side effects."
Muth's research focuses on helmet-mounted displays that are used in virtual-environments technology. Before coming to Clemson 11 years ago, Muth spent three years in the Navy as an aerospace experimental psychologist working on wearable monitors and tracking systems to improve military training and to monitor soldiers, sailors and marines during combat. Now he uses helmet-mounted displays to study motion sickness, nausea and other upper gastrointestinal discomforts - the area of his graduate studies at the Pennsylvania State University under Robert Stern, a pioneer in biofeedback.
"Basically, when people are exposed to stimuli from a helmet-mounted display in the lab, it involves linking a subject's head movements to the changing view in the virtual environment," he said. "The response is complicated. It's not just a perceptual adjustment.
"Years ago research showed that the brain can re-set an upside-down view of world to be right side up. Constantly changing images pose a bigger challenge for the brain, which has to deal with 'lag': the time it takes the computer system to update and display changing visual images corresponding to the users head movements. This may be a variable linked to motion sickness and other symptoms related to helmet-mounted devices."
Muth and the other researchers at the Human Factors Institute seek to improve the way people interact with technology and devices.
"Helmet-mounted devices are going to be found everywhere as video gamers and the public get caught up in virtual reality," said Muth. "We have already seen the popularity of 3D movies, and 3D television is making its way into our living rooms. We need to know more about the side effects and how to deal with them. I would not allow my kids to use this technology before checking their susceptibility to the downsides, and even then I would limit and monitor their access to the virtual world."
Source:
Eric Muth
Clemson University
суббота, 28 января 2012 г.
суббота, 21 января 2012 г.
Hospital Stress Turns Friendly Gut Bacteria Nasty, Killing 40% Of Patients
Researchers have discovered that our friendly gut bacteria, vital partners in fermenting and processing our everyday food, turn on us in times of stress such as major surgery, cancer chemotherapy or bowel disease and seize the opportunity to create havoc and kill our other probiotic bacteria.
Swimmer's Ear, infections from wearing contact lenses, and puncture wounds in children's feet which turn septic are all caused by the common bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which is widely found in soil, water and sewage. While only 3% of people normally harbour this organism in their intestines, during hospitalization for critical illness, more than 50% of patients end up with this bacteria. Most of the time Pseudomonas aeruginosa lives within our guts in peaceful co-existence when we have plenty of food and good health. But in times of stress such as during hospital stays they rapidly turn on us and become concerned only for their own survival. Patients infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa have a high fatality rate approaching 40%.
"Since most hospital acquired infections develop from bacteria we already have in our guts, working out how to shield them from the stress molecules we produce may be a more effective treatment than trying to use antibiotics to kill them", says medical researcher Professor Olga Zaborina from the University of Chicago, USA.
The scientists have discovered for the first time that these bacteria have a highly sophisticated sensing apparatus which recognises and intercepts chemical compounds we produce during stress such as endorphin hormones, immune system molecules such as interferon, and signals produced by damaged and oxygen starved tissues like adenosine.
"This means that the bacteria have evolved a way of taking advantage of any opportunity through their highly refined 'sense and respond circuits' which can identify the very molecules we humans use to respond to stress or illness", says Professor Zaborina. "This virulence circuitry is so clever that P. aeruginosa can recognise our weakness, communicate this information to other bacteria, and simultaneously release compounds which kill our normal probiotic gut bacteria", giving them home field advantage right off the bat.
Currently over-using antibiotics in hospitals is causing major problems with the spread of antibiotic resistance amongst bacteria. Even ordinary environmental bacteria have evolved a highly sophisticated mechanism to become resistant to antibiotics, enabling them to kill badly stressed and weak patients. Intestinal bacteria such as P. aeruginosa are a particular problem because they form a protective slime, called a biofilm, which stops antibiotics from killing them. Even within the slime they can still sense and respond to a host's stress chemicals, causing infections.
The only treatments available until now have been a 'take no prisoners' approach using antibiotics which kill several types of bacteria including the normal, protective, probiotic bacteria in our guts, further weakening the patient.
"If we do not find a strategy to contain intestinal bacteria rather than eliminating them, which helps spread resistance, we will soon run out of effective antibiotics", says Professor Zaborina. "We know of many diseases caused or complicated by intestinal bacteria such as Inflammatory Bowel Disease, infectious diarrhoea, or cancer treatments such as chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants".
"Yet in all these cases specific bacterial strains responsible for the problem cannot always be identified, because the species are difficult to culture", says Professor Zaborina. In addition it is not just the mere presence of the strains in the intestine that may be threatening, but rather the state of their virulence, which is not routinely examined clinically. "Exposing the Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde nature of intestinal bacteria is a key to understanding how they behave. We cannot afford to ignore their will to survive during stress".
The scientists suggest that in future paying better attention to the needs of our gut bacteria, especially when someone is sick, dehydrated, starved or stressed, could help to reduce the need for antibiotics and lead to a lower hospital acquired infection rate.
About the SOCIETY FOR GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
The SGM has been established for over 50 years, promoting and supporting the art, science and significance of microbiology and associated subjects worldwide.
SOCIETY FOR GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
Marlborough House
Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood
Reading
RG7 1AG
socgenmicrobiol
Swimmer's Ear, infections from wearing contact lenses, and puncture wounds in children's feet which turn septic are all caused by the common bacteria Pseudomonas aeruginosa, which is widely found in soil, water and sewage. While only 3% of people normally harbour this organism in their intestines, during hospitalization for critical illness, more than 50% of patients end up with this bacteria. Most of the time Pseudomonas aeruginosa lives within our guts in peaceful co-existence when we have plenty of food and good health. But in times of stress such as during hospital stays they rapidly turn on us and become concerned only for their own survival. Patients infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa have a high fatality rate approaching 40%.
"Since most hospital acquired infections develop from bacteria we already have in our guts, working out how to shield them from the stress molecules we produce may be a more effective treatment than trying to use antibiotics to kill them", says medical researcher Professor Olga Zaborina from the University of Chicago, USA.
The scientists have discovered for the first time that these bacteria have a highly sophisticated sensing apparatus which recognises and intercepts chemical compounds we produce during stress such as endorphin hormones, immune system molecules such as interferon, and signals produced by damaged and oxygen starved tissues like adenosine.
"This means that the bacteria have evolved a way of taking advantage of any opportunity through their highly refined 'sense and respond circuits' which can identify the very molecules we humans use to respond to stress or illness", says Professor Zaborina. "This virulence circuitry is so clever that P. aeruginosa can recognise our weakness, communicate this information to other bacteria, and simultaneously release compounds which kill our normal probiotic gut bacteria", giving them home field advantage right off the bat.
Currently over-using antibiotics in hospitals is causing major problems with the spread of antibiotic resistance amongst bacteria. Even ordinary environmental bacteria have evolved a highly sophisticated mechanism to become resistant to antibiotics, enabling them to kill badly stressed and weak patients. Intestinal bacteria such as P. aeruginosa are a particular problem because they form a protective slime, called a biofilm, which stops antibiotics from killing them. Even within the slime they can still sense and respond to a host's stress chemicals, causing infections.
The only treatments available until now have been a 'take no prisoners' approach using antibiotics which kill several types of bacteria including the normal, protective, probiotic bacteria in our guts, further weakening the patient.
"If we do not find a strategy to contain intestinal bacteria rather than eliminating them, which helps spread resistance, we will soon run out of effective antibiotics", says Professor Zaborina. "We know of many diseases caused or complicated by intestinal bacteria such as Inflammatory Bowel Disease, infectious diarrhoea, or cancer treatments such as chemotherapy and bone marrow transplants".
"Yet in all these cases specific bacterial strains responsible for the problem cannot always be identified, because the species are difficult to culture", says Professor Zaborina. In addition it is not just the mere presence of the strains in the intestine that may be threatening, but rather the state of their virulence, which is not routinely examined clinically. "Exposing the Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde nature of intestinal bacteria is a key to understanding how they behave. We cannot afford to ignore their will to survive during stress".
The scientists suggest that in future paying better attention to the needs of our gut bacteria, especially when someone is sick, dehydrated, starved or stressed, could help to reduce the need for antibiotics and lead to a lower hospital acquired infection rate.
About the SOCIETY FOR GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
The SGM has been established for over 50 years, promoting and supporting the art, science and significance of microbiology and associated subjects worldwide.
SOCIETY FOR GENERAL MICROBIOLOGY
Marlborough House
Basingstoke Road, Spencers Wood
Reading
RG7 1AG
socgenmicrobiol
суббота, 14 января 2012 г.
What The Public Needs To Know About Restaurant Inspections
Foodborne diseases cause an estimated 76 million illnesses in the U.S. each year with about half associated with restaurant meals. More than 70 billion meals per year are purchased in restaurants in the U.S., accounting for 47% of total food expenditure. Therefore, preventing restaurant-associated foodborne disease is an important task of public health departments. According to an article published in the June 2008 issue of the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, the public is generally unaware of the frequency of restaurant inspections and the consequences of poor inspection results.
According to Timothy F. Jones, MD, Tennessee Department of Health and Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, "That consumers have a number of misconceptions and unrealistically high expectations of the restaurant-inspection system was a major finding of this large survey. Inspections are one mechanism through which regulatory agencies educate operators and encourage ongoing compliance. However, the industry must ultimately take responsibility for consistently and effectively maintaining food safety. Public health and regulatory agencies should work closely with the industry to improve consumers' understanding of inspection scores and the limitations of regulatory inspections, as well as the role of regulatory inspections in disease prevention."
Using data from telephone surveys of 2000 adults in Tennessee in 2006, researchers found that while almost all respondents (97%) were aware that restaurants were inspected regularly, over 50% believed that inspections occurred from 5 to more than 12 times per year. Only 33% correctly answered that the inspection frequency is twice per year. When asked how often restaurants should be inspected, even fewer people (9%) responded that restaurants should be inspected two times per year; 53% believed that inspections should occur about 12 times per year. When asked about the relative importance of inspections to protect consumers from illnesses, 70% said "very important" and 28% said it was "the most important" safety measure.
Tennessee restaurant inspectors use a 44-item checklist with a total possible score of 100 for best performance. Respondents were asked what score would be the lowest acceptable for a restaurant at which they would eat. Seventy-seven percent said a score of 80 or greater, of whom, 45% said more than 90. This contrasts to a mean score of 82 from another study of 168,000 inspections in Tennessee and where only one third of all restaurants scored higher than 90.
When asked what should happen if a restaurant did not get an acceptable score, 657 (37%) said the restaurant should be closed immediately and allowed to reopen when the situation was corrected. In Tennessee, as in many jurisdictions, it is unusual for sanctions to be imposed on an establishment based on a single inspection. Regulators work with operators to promptly mitigate risks, but closure generally follows recurrent problems that have gone uncorrected after substantial training and consultation.
The article is "Public Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Public Health Inspections of Restaurants" by Timothy F. Jones, MD, and Karen Grimm, MA. It appears in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 34, Issue 6 (June 2008) published by Elsevier.
Source: AJPM Editorial Office
Elsevier Health Sciences
According to Timothy F. Jones, MD, Tennessee Department of Health and Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, "That consumers have a number of misconceptions and unrealistically high expectations of the restaurant-inspection system was a major finding of this large survey. Inspections are one mechanism through which regulatory agencies educate operators and encourage ongoing compliance. However, the industry must ultimately take responsibility for consistently and effectively maintaining food safety. Public health and regulatory agencies should work closely with the industry to improve consumers' understanding of inspection scores and the limitations of regulatory inspections, as well as the role of regulatory inspections in disease prevention."
Using data from telephone surveys of 2000 adults in Tennessee in 2006, researchers found that while almost all respondents (97%) were aware that restaurants were inspected regularly, over 50% believed that inspections occurred from 5 to more than 12 times per year. Only 33% correctly answered that the inspection frequency is twice per year. When asked how often restaurants should be inspected, even fewer people (9%) responded that restaurants should be inspected two times per year; 53% believed that inspections should occur about 12 times per year. When asked about the relative importance of inspections to protect consumers from illnesses, 70% said "very important" and 28% said it was "the most important" safety measure.
Tennessee restaurant inspectors use a 44-item checklist with a total possible score of 100 for best performance. Respondents were asked what score would be the lowest acceptable for a restaurant at which they would eat. Seventy-seven percent said a score of 80 or greater, of whom, 45% said more than 90. This contrasts to a mean score of 82 from another study of 168,000 inspections in Tennessee and where only one third of all restaurants scored higher than 90.
When asked what should happen if a restaurant did not get an acceptable score, 657 (37%) said the restaurant should be closed immediately and allowed to reopen when the situation was corrected. In Tennessee, as in many jurisdictions, it is unusual for sanctions to be imposed on an establishment based on a single inspection. Regulators work with operators to promptly mitigate risks, but closure generally follows recurrent problems that have gone uncorrected after substantial training and consultation.
The article is "Public Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Public Health Inspections of Restaurants" by Timothy F. Jones, MD, and Karen Grimm, MA. It appears in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine, Volume 34, Issue 6 (June 2008) published by Elsevier.
Source: AJPM Editorial Office
Elsevier Health Sciences
суббота, 7 января 2012 г.
European Regulators Reaffirm Pfizer's COX-2 Portfolio
Pfizer Inc said today that European regulators have completed their safety assessment of the COX-2 specific inhibitor class and have reaffirmed the use of Pfizer's COX-2 specific inhibitor medicines Celebrex, Bextra and Dynastat in a broad range of patients.
The review, which began in July 2002, was conducted by the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products and has been ratified by the European Commission. As part of the ratification, Pfizer will revise the labels of its COX-2 specific inhibitors to clarify for physicians how best to use these medicines in patients with cardiovascular disease as well as patients at high risk of gastrointestinal events and patients who take low-dose aspirin.
'We are pleased that the Commission has affirmed the use of these important medicines for patients across Europe," said Dr. Jack Watters, Vice President of Medical and Regulatory Affairs for Pfizer Europe/Canada.
"Pfizer 's COX-2 specific inhibitor medicines have been studied in tens of thousands of patients worldwide and have been shown to be not only effective in reducing pain and inflammation, but do so with less risk of the gastrointestinal side effects often associated with older, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)."
One of the many studies that demonstrate the superior gastrointestinal safety profile of Celebrex involved more than 1.4 million elderly patients in Ontario, Canada of which over 15,000 were treated with Celebrex. This study showed that patients who took older NSAIDs were four times more likely to be hospitalized due to a gastrointestinal hemorrhage than patients who received Celebrex.
European regulators affirmed that Celebrex can be appropriately used in patients with cardiovascular disease based on the large body of data submitted by Pfizer. One of these studies, which included more than 22,000 patients, confirmed that those who received Celebrex were not at an increased risk of serious coronary heart disease compared to patients who received placebo or other pain medicines (rofecoxib, naproxen and ibuprofen).
Pfizer's COX-2 specific inhibitor portfolio consists of Celebrex and Bextra, both oral medicines indicated for the treatment of rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, as well as Dynastat, an injectable COX-2 specific inhibitor used to manage post-surgical pain.
Celebrex is the most widely prescribed COX-2 specific inhibitor in the world with over 42 million patients treated since its introduction in 1999.
View drug information on Bextra.
The review, which began in July 2002, was conducted by the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products and has been ratified by the European Commission. As part of the ratification, Pfizer will revise the labels of its COX-2 specific inhibitors to clarify for physicians how best to use these medicines in patients with cardiovascular disease as well as patients at high risk of gastrointestinal events and patients who take low-dose aspirin.
'We are pleased that the Commission has affirmed the use of these important medicines for patients across Europe," said Dr. Jack Watters, Vice President of Medical and Regulatory Affairs for Pfizer Europe/Canada.
"Pfizer 's COX-2 specific inhibitor medicines have been studied in tens of thousands of patients worldwide and have been shown to be not only effective in reducing pain and inflammation, but do so with less risk of the gastrointestinal side effects often associated with older, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs)."
One of the many studies that demonstrate the superior gastrointestinal safety profile of Celebrex involved more than 1.4 million elderly patients in Ontario, Canada of which over 15,000 were treated with Celebrex. This study showed that patients who took older NSAIDs were four times more likely to be hospitalized due to a gastrointestinal hemorrhage than patients who received Celebrex.
European regulators affirmed that Celebrex can be appropriately used in patients with cardiovascular disease based on the large body of data submitted by Pfizer. One of these studies, which included more than 22,000 patients, confirmed that those who received Celebrex were not at an increased risk of serious coronary heart disease compared to patients who received placebo or other pain medicines (rofecoxib, naproxen and ibuprofen).
Pfizer's COX-2 specific inhibitor portfolio consists of Celebrex and Bextra, both oral medicines indicated for the treatment of rheumatoid and osteoarthritis, as well as Dynastat, an injectable COX-2 specific inhibitor used to manage post-surgical pain.
Celebrex is the most widely prescribed COX-2 specific inhibitor in the world with over 42 million patients treated since its introduction in 1999.
View drug information on Bextra.
Подписаться на:
Сообщения (Atom)