Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences最新文献

{"title":"Strategies for improving geriatric patient-centred care in medical radiation practice","authors":"Jacob Leonard Ago , Andrew Kilgour , Nathaniel Awentirin Angaag , Solomon Korsah , Bismark Ofori-Manteaw , Clare L. Smith , Godwill Acquah , Mathias Domlan , Erica Mawusinu Domi , Joana Justina Neequaye","doi":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101887","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101887","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46420,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences","volume":"56 3","pages":"Article 101887"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143579443","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluating image quality on post-mortem cardiac CT using an anthropomorphic phantom","authors":"Marissa Molyneaux ,&nbsp;Michaela Davis ,&nbsp;Thomas Rueskov Andersen ,&nbsp;Katrine Schultz Overgaard ,&nbsp;Alexander Broersen ,&nbsp;Jouke Djikstra ,&nbsp;Laurits Juhl Heinsen ,&nbsp;Helle Precht","doi":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101876","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101876","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><div>Ischemic heart disease is a major cause of mortality worldwide. Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has been recognised as a procedure for diagnosing atherosclerotic plaques. One method used to test the diagnostic accuracy of new technical developments on the CT scanner is post-mortem imaging. This study aimed to compare image quality of CCTA on post-mortem hearts scanned inside an anthropomorphic phantom versus scanning directly on the scanner bed, and evaluate which image was most comparable to scanning in-vivo (living patients).</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Ten post-mortem hearts were scanned using the two methods and ten CCTA in-vivo were included for comparison. Region of interest (ROI) measurements in both the right and left ventricles of the hearts were made and coronary vessel analysis measured plaque burden and composition. To examine the difference between each scanning method, we compared the mean and standard deviation of these measurements. The difference in image quality was also examined visually through images and a dot plot.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>A Wilcoxon Signed Rank test showed that ROI measurements from the two methods were significantly different. Mann-Whitney-U tests showed a significant difference between the in-vivo measurements and the two post-mortem scanning methods. Wilcoxon signed-rank tests indicated a significant difference for 4 out of 5 plaque measurements. Visually, a noisier image was seen using the phantom, though it was closer to in-vivo imaging and had a clearer plaque visualisation.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>A significant difference in image quality between scans taken with the heart directly on the scanner bed compared to inside the phantom, with those inside the phantom being more comparable to in-vivo scans. This highlights the importance of using an appropriate scanning technique when imaging post-mortem organs.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46420,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences","volume":"56 3","pages":"Article 101876"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143570527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Educational audit of radiography clinical training sites in a limited resource setting: Zambian clinical educators perspectives","authors":"Osward Bwanga ,&nbsp;James Maimbo Sichone ,&nbsp;Stefan Kafwimbi ,&nbsp;Ncheebe Sindaza ,&nbsp;Oliver Sutherland ,&nbsp;Brian Mubanga","doi":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101867","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101867","url":null,"abstract":"&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Introduction&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;An educational audit is a crucial quality measurement tool for a clinical learning environment (CLE) and is a collaborative responsibility of higher education institutions (HEIs) and clinical training sites. An effective CLE should have regular educational audits to meet quality education standards. In Zambia, the enrolment numbers of undergraduate radiography students have increased despite limited clinical training sites and training resources. Nevertheless, no published educational audit has been conducted to provide baseline information to decision-makers. Most of the research studies on the quality of CLE in clinical education have been conducted from the viewpoint of radiography students. Therefore, this study aimed to audit the clinical training sites for undergraduate radiography students from the perspectives of Zambian radiography clinical educators.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Methods&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;This educational audit was conducted using a quantitative study design from April to July 2024. Data were collected using an audit questionnaire developed based on the National Quality Clinical Learning Environment Audit Tool (NQCLEAT). The educational audit was limited to nationwide clinical training sites (&lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt; = 40) of undergraduate radiography students. As per the aim of this study, each clinical educator (designated radiographer) completed one audit questionnaire at each clinical training site. The quantitative data was analysed using descriptive and inferential statistics. Qualitative data on recommendations for improvement of clinical training were analysed using content analysis and presented in a table.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Results&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Thirty-six responses were received from radiography clinical educators, representing 90 % of the clinical training sites. Three standards had high adherence: orientation of students, provision of feedback and assessments and achievement of clinical learning outcomes. On the other hand, two standards were not fully implemented in most training sites: demonstrating commitment by HEIs and supporting student supervision. Three main recommendations for improvement of radiography clinical training were the formal appointment of clinical educators (&lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt; = 17;32.7 %), providing training to clinical educators (&lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt; = 12;23.1%) and clinical education guidelines and teaching materials (&lt;em&gt;n&lt;/em&gt; = 12; 23.1 %).&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Conclusion&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;This educational audit's findings revealed areas for improvement in the CLE. The study highlights the need for regular audits to ensure that radiography clinical training meets standards and adequately prepares students for real-life radiography practice.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div&gt;&lt;h3&gt;Implication of practice&lt;/h3&gt;&lt;div&gt;Although clinical training sites met three out of five clinical education standards, thus marking them suitable to support student training, there is room for improvement by implementing the recommendations and periodic aud","PeriodicalId":46420,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences","volume":"56 3","pages":"Article 101867"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143563358","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Clinical decision making through game-based learning: Observations within a Radiography Escape Room","authors":"Tarni Nelson ,&nbsp;Johnathan Hewis","doi":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101868","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101868","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction</h3><div>The paper reports observations following the design and implementation of an immersive multi-sensory escape room as a novel professional, game-based workshop to foster clinical decision making in diagnostic radiography.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>The two authors developed an educational Radiography Escape Room. Participants successfully completed tasks within the radiography escape room, with some finishing the tasks within the sixty-minute time frame and subsequently escaping the room. By completing the story plot of the hospital shift as a radiographer through a series of sequential, radiography-based puzzles, participants tested their specialised knowledge and professional capabilities within a time constrained simulated clinical environment.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>Escape room deployment in radiography education allowed participants to enhance problem solving skills requiring collaboration and effective teamwork to make simulated clinical decisions. During the post escape room debriefing session, participants anecdotally indicated that participating in the escape room required them to draw upon their own prior knowledge and skills and fostered problem solving, clinical reasoning and justification, and collaborative teamwork.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Escape rooms offer the potential to be used as an effective pedagogical tool in radiography education and training, complementing the growing educational use of escape rooms within other healthcare disciplines. Carefully curated, evidence-based scenarios and thorough testing are essential for successful implementation.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46420,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences","volume":"56 3","pages":"Article 101868"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143563355","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Tools of the trade: Untangling medical directives, delegations, and the medical radiation technology regulatory landscape in Ontario,✰✰★,","authors":"Darby Erler ,&nbsp;Caitlin Gillan","doi":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101864","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101864","url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>As self-regulated professions, it is incumbent on all disciplines of medical radiation and imaging technologists (MRITs) to maintain an understanding of how their practice is governed, including how its scope of practice and any governing legislation can be leveraged responsibly to optimize practice. With a focus on Ontario, Canada, this paper provides a primer on some of the key regulatory considerations for practice that may be of particular relevance as the profession seeks to optimize its ability to contribute to safe and timely care and to mitigate pressing staffing considerations.</div><div>In certain Canadian provinces, including Ontario, MRIT disciplines are self-regulated, meaning that practice of the MRIT professions are overseen by a designated self-governing regulatory body in the public interest, pursuant to relevant healthcare legislation in that province. Multiple pieces of legislation govern the practice of MRITs in Ontario; the Regulated Health Professions (RHPA) Act is the legislation that governs all of Ontario's regulated health professions’ colleges and identifies controlled acts. The Medical Radiation and Imaging Technology Act (MRIT Act) is the companion act that sets out the scope of practice for the profession and identifies controlled acts that are authorized to MRITs.</div><div>A medical directive is a document that serves as an order for a procedure, treatment or intervention for a range of patients who meet specific conditions, authorized by a physician, and implemented by another individual. Some practical examples for MRITs include orders for establishing peripheral intravenous access for administration of contrast media (when a medical imaging or radiation therapy simulation scan has been ordered), or administering a pregnancy test (when nuclear medicine exam has been ordered). Delegation is the process by which a regulated health professional authorized to perform a controlled act, gives that authority to someone who is not authorized. Ontario examples include disclosure of results of pregnancy test prior to performing a nuclear medicine exam (RHPA Controlled Act 1) and the prescription of pharmaceuticals from a defined formulary in advanced practice radiation therapy roles (RHPA Controlled Act 8).</div><div>Medical directives and delegations can be applied responsibly in various MRIT settings, including in standard practice, advanced practice, for MRIT students (and as-yet-uncertified graduates), and for limited practice or assistant MRIT roles.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46420,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences","volume":"56 3","pages":"Article 101864"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143563357","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Editorial Board/Masthead","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/S1939-8654(25)00021-9","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S1939-8654(25)00021-9","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46420,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences","volume":"56 2","pages":"Article 101871"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143509247","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Message de la rédactrice en chef","authors":"Amanda Bolderston EdD, MSc, MRT(T), FCAMRT","doi":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101862","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101862","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46420,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences","volume":"56 2","pages":"Article 101862"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143509382","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Subscription","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/S1939-8654(25)00022-0","DOIUrl":"10.1016/S1939-8654(25)00022-0","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46420,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences","volume":"56 2","pages":"Article 101872"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143509246","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Message from the Editor","authors":"Amanda Bolderston EdD, MSc, MRT(T), FCAMRT","doi":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101857","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101857","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46420,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences","volume":"56 2","pages":"Article 101857"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143509381","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Artificial Intelligence user interface preferences in radiology: A scoping review","authors":"Avneet Gill ,&nbsp;Clare Rainey ,&nbsp;Laura McLaughlin ,&nbsp;Ciara Hughes ,&nbsp;Raymond Bond ,&nbsp;Jonathan McConnell ,&nbsp;Sonyia McFadden","doi":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101866","DOIUrl":"10.1016/j.jmir.2025.101866","url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction/Background</h3><div>Modern forms of Artificial intelligence (AI) have developed in radiology over the past few years. With the current workforce shortages, in both radiology and radiography professions, AI continues to prove its place in supporting clinical radiology processes. The aim of the scoping review was to investigate the existing literature on the topic of preference of use of artificial intelligence interfaces within a radiology context.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>Using a systematic approach, papers were chosen against an inclusion criterion of addressing radiological AI user interface preferences to be included in the scoping review. Arksey O'Malley's and Levac's framework were used to inform the procedural steps for the scoping review. Four databases were searched including MEDLINE Ovid, Scopus, Web of Science and Engineering Village. Reliability was improved through the involvement of three researchers to select the papers against the inclusion criteria.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Six papers were identified to fit the inclusion criteria of radiological AI user interface preferences. These varied methodologically including two observational studies, two simulated user testing studies, a diagnostic accuracy study and a multi-case study. AI user interfaces were evaluated in two studies. Mixed responses were obtained with some alignment in preference for heatmap image overlays and highly detailed user interfaces are linked to higher preference amongst users. Limited literature exists on AI user interfaces and a lack of research evaluating current AI interface preference, either in post or pre-deployment.</div></div><div><h3>Discussion</h3><div>The mix of methods used within studies indicated that there is not yet a standardised method for assessing AI tool design and preference within radiology, with common use of a System Usability Scale survey tool in conjunction with another method. There was also a varied response when considering the preferred user interface in radiology, though simple, non-complicated designs were suggested to be ideal by participants.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>Medical imaging AI user interface research is essential for the acceptability of AI technology into radiology departments. This scoping review identified the current landscape of AI user interface research within a radiology setting. There is a requirement for more radiology AI research focussing on end user or imaging professional involvement and their preferences. There is an explicit need for further research in the field, due to the lack of standardised outcome measures, lack clear findings regarding ideal user interfaces and lack of inclusion of radiographers. The dearth of studies including radiographers and small sample sizes of participants within these studies identifies the mindset shift required for radiology, and AI vendors alike.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":46420,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Imaging and Radiation Sciences","volume":"56 3","pages":"Article 101866"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143510274","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}