No abstract

Background: Studies of gene expression in post mortem human brain can contribute to understanding of the pathophysiology of neurodegenerative diseases, including Alzheimer's disease (AD), Parkinson's disease (PD) and dementia with Lewy bodies (DLB). Quantitative real-time PCR (RT qPCR) is often used to analyse gene expression. The validity of results obtained using RT qPCR is reliant on accurate data normalization. Reference genes are generally used to normalize RT qPCR data. Given that expression of some commonly used reference genes is altered in certain conditions, this study aimed to establish which reference genes were stably expressed in post mortem brain tissue from individuals with AD, PD or DLB.

Introduction Simulation forms a key element of undergraduate Radiography education as it enables students to develop their clinical skills in a safe environment. In this study, an immersive three-dimensional (3D) virtual radiography simulation tool was piloted in an undergraduate Radiography curriculum and user feedback retrieved. Methods The 3D virtual simulation tool by Virtual Medical Coaching Ltd was introduced to first year radiography students (n = 105). This technology guided students through a comprehensive process of learning anatomy, radiographic positioning and pathology. Students then X-rayed a virtual patient in the VR suite using HTC Vive Pro™ headsets and hand controllers. Instant feedback was provided. An online survey was later disseminated to students to gather user feedback. Thematic and descriptive statistical analyses were applied. Results A response rate of 79% (n = 83) was achieved. Most respondents (58%) reported enjoying VR simulation, whilst some felt indifferent towards it (27%). Ninety-four percent would recommend this tool to other students. The mean length of time it took for students to feel comfortable using the technology was 60 min (10–240 min). Most respondents (58%) desired more VR access. Students attributed enhanced confidence in the areas of beam collimation (75%), anatomical marker placement (63%), centring of the X-ray tube (64%) and exposure parameter selection (56%) to their VR practice. Many students (55%) advocated the use of VR in formative or low stakes assessments. Issues flagged included technical glitches, inability to palpate patient and lack of constructive feedback. Conclusion Student feedback indicates that 3D virtual radiography simulation is a valuable pedagogical tool in radiography education Implications for practice 3D immersive VR simulation is perceived by radiography students to be a valuable learning resource. VR needs to be strategically implemented into curricula to maximise its benefits.

No abstract