Background: Diagnostic decision-making is made through a combination of Systems 1 (intuition or pattern-recognition) and Systems 2 (analytic) thinking. The purpose of this study was to use the Cognitive Reflection Test (CRT) to evaluate and compare the level of Systems 1 and 2 thinking among medical students in pre-clinical and clinical programs.Methods: The CRT is a three-question test designed to measure the ability of respondents to activate metacognitive processes and switch to System 2 (analytic) thinking where System 1 (intuitive) thinking would lead them astray. Each CRT question has a correct analytical (System 2) answer and an incorrect intuitive (System 1) answer. A group of medical students in Years 2 & 3 (pre-clinical) and Years 4 (in clinical practice) of a 5-year medical degree were studied.Results: Ten percent (13/128) of students had the intuitive answers to the three questions (suggesting they generally relied on System 1 thinking) while almost half (44%) answered all three correctly (indicating full analytical, System 2 thinking). Only 3-13% had incorrect answers (i.e. that were neither the analytical nor the intuitive responses). Non-native English speaking students (n = 11) had a lower mean number of correct answers compared to native English speakers (n = 117: 1.0 s 2.12 respectfully: p < 0.01). As students progressed through questions 1 to 3, the percentage of correct System 2 answers increased and the percentage of intuitive answers decreased in both the pre-clinical and clinical students. Conclusions: Up to half of the medical students demonstrated full or partial reliance on System 1 (intuitive) thinking in response to these analytical questions. While their CRT performance has no claims to make as to their future expertise as clinicians, the test may be used in helping students to understand the importance of awareness and regulation of their thinking processes in clinical practice.

Purpose of review Dietary factors have been linked to cancers. This review focuses on several nutrients, which have strong evidence showing increase in cancer risks in the esophagus and stomach. Recent findings Obesity is an important risk factor in upper gastrointestinal cancers. High sugar content in food and sugary drinks are the main drivers of obesity. Proinflammatory diet is another dietary factor, which is increasingly recognized as being associated with esophageal and gastric cancer. Summary Cancer has been predicted to be the leading cause of death in this century. Cancers of the esophagus and stomach are the six and third most common cause of death worldwide. Although Helicobacter pylori infection is a known cause of gastric cancer, obesity is a leading contributor to esophageal adenocarcinoma. Epidemiological data have shown that dietary factors are associated with the two cancers. Observational, case control, animal and recent large cohort studies have identified associations between dietary factors and upper gastrointestinal cancer. Data are also emerging from studies, which look at dietary patterns, such as reduction in the Dietary Inflammatory Index, as well as adherence to a modified Mediterranean diet, and its association with the incidence of esophageal and gastric cancer.

Background and Aim: Patients with functional dyspepsia (FD) often have concomitant anxiety and depression. Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy (MBCT) combines the principles of cognitive behavioral therapy and mindfulness. It is a group-based therapy and has been shown to be efficacious in functional gastrointestinal disorders. There are no randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating MBCT in FD. We aimed to evaluate feasibility and efficacy of MBCT in FD management. Methods: We performed a mixed-method single-center pilot randomized trial of 28 patients fulfilling ROME-III criteria for FD. Fifteen patients were randomized to an 8-week MBCT program while 13 underwent treatment-as-usual (TAU). Patients completed questionnaires at baseline and at week 8. Two focus-groups were conducted. Feasibility of recruitment, acceptability of randomization, procedures and intervention, handout compliance and feasibility of quantitative measures were assessed. The primary outcome was subjective-clinical-assessment of FD symptoms (SCA-FD). Secondary outcome measures included Short-form Nepean Dyspepsia Index (SF-NDI), subjective-clinical-assessment of general health (SCA-GH), EuroQoL-Visual Analog Scale (EuroQoL-VAS), and Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 Items (DASS-21). Results: Twelve of 15 patients in the MBCT group completed the program. There was a trend towards symptom improvement, with 90% in the MBCT group reporting improvement in SCA-FD compared with 45% in TAU(P = 0.063). Patients who underwent MBCT reported greater improvement in SF-NDI (mean change: À8.8 (SD: 7.5) vs À0.7 (7.2), P = 0.018) and DASS-21 (À19.8 (29.5) vs À5.5 (6.6) P = 0.13) compared with TAU. There was no difference in SCA-GH and EuroQoL-VAS. Based on SCA-FD improvement, the eventual RCT will require 50 patients (25 in each group). Conclusions: Mindfulness-based cognitive therapy is likely efficacious for FD, and it would be feasible to conduct a RCT.

Background and study aims Using personal protective equipment (PPE) can reduce risk of disease transmission. During the COVID-19 pandemic, enhanced PPE (EPPE) is recommended when performing endoscopy. We aimed to evaluate the impact of EPPE on colonoscopy performance when compared to standard PPE (SPPE). Patients and methods A review of electronic medical records and endoscopy reports of consecutive patients who underwent colonoscopy during two similar one-month time periods (in 2019 and during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020) was performed. SPPE was used in 2019 and EPPE was used in 2020. Patient clinical data and procedure-related information were captured and analyzed. The primary outcomes were time to cecum (TTC) and total procedure time. Secondary outcomes were adenoma detection rate (ADR), polyp detection rate (PDR) and cecal intubation rate (CIR). Statistical analysis was performed using STATA v16.1. Results Two hundred and forty-seven colonoscopy procedures were analyzed. Baseline demographics and indications for colonoscopy of patients in both groups were similar. There were no significant differences in median TTC (10.0 vs 10.0 min, P = 0.524) or total procedure time (22.5 vs 23.0 min, P = 0.946) between colonoscopy performed in SPPE and EPPE. The ADR, PDR and CIR were also similar. Conclusion Our findings suggest that use of EPPE does not affect colonoscopy performance.