OBJECTIVE: To compare the accuracy of energy and nutrient intake estimation of four technology-assisted dietary assessment methods relative to true intake across breakfast, lunch, and dinner.
METHODS: In a controlled feeding study with a crossover design, 152 participants (55% women; mean age 32y (SD 11); mean BMI 26 kg/m2 (SD 5)) were randomized to one of three separate feeding days to consume breakfast, lunch, and dinner, with unobtrusive weighing of foods and beverages consumed. Participants undertook a 24HR the following day (Automated Self-Administered Dietary Assessment Tool-Australia© (ASA24); Intake24-Australia©; mobile Food Record™ - Trained Analyst (mFR-TA); or Image-Assisted Interviewer-Administered 24-hour recall (IA-24HR)). When assigned to IA-24HR, participants referred to images captured of their meals using the mobile Food Record™ app. True and estimated energy and nutrient intakes were compared, and differences among methods were assessed using linear mixed models.
RESULTS: The mean difference between true and estimated energy intake as a percentage of true intake was 5.4% (95% CI 0.6, 10.2) using ASA24, 1.7% (95% CI -2.9, 6.3) using Intake24, 1.3% (95% CI -1.1, 3.8) using mFR-TA, and 15.0% (95% CI 11.6, 18.3) using IA-24HR. The variances of estimated and true energy intakes were statistically significantly different for all methods (P<0.01), apart from Intake 24 (P=0.1). Differential accuracy in nutrient estimation was present among the methods.
CONCLUSIONS: Under controlled conditions, Intake24, ASA24, and mFR-TA estimated average energy and nutrient intakes with reasonable validity, but intake distributions were estimated accurately by Intake24 only (energy and protein). This study may inform considerations regarding instruments of choice in future population surveillance.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Number ACTRN12621000209897; https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=381165&isReview=true.
Methods: In this quantitative research 87 medical students of 4th year from three public and five private medical colleges and universities participated. A laparoscopy operation was selected in consultation with senior medical consultants for this experiment. The experimental material was arranged in virtual reality, video and text based learning. At completion of each of which, participants completed a questionnaire about learning motivation and learning competency through the different mediums.
Results: Statistical t-test was selected for the analysis of this study. By comparing the mean values of virtual reality, video, and text based learning methodologies in medical academics; result of virtual reality is at top of others. All performed model are statistically significant (P=0.000) and results can be applied at all population.
Conclusion: Through this research, we contribute to medical students learning methodologies. In medical studies, both theoretical and practical expertise has a vital role, while repetition of hands-on practice can improve young doctors' professional competency. Virtual reality was found best for medical students in both learning motivation and learning competency. Medical students and educationist may select virtual reality as new learning methodology for curriculum learning.
Methods: This was a cross-sectional study of sporadic young-onset CRC over 11 years from 1 January 2006 to 31 December 2017 in Kelantan. Formalin-fixed paraffin-embedded tissue blocks were immunohistochemically stained with antibodies for MMR (MLH1, MSH2, MSH6, and PMS2) and BRAF V600E. These expressions were correlated with clinicopathological parameters.
Results: Our patient sample included 31 patients with a mean age of 31.5 years. More than half (61.3%) of the patients were women. The majority presented with abdominal pain (41.9%), and 71.0% had a tumor located on the right side of the colon, with 83.9% being moderately differentiated adenocarcinoma. The majority of patients presented at stage IV (54.8%). The most frequent pattern was all MMR protein expressions, which constituted patients in the microsatellite stable group (64.5%). Nine (29.0%) were microsatellite instability (MSI-high), and two (6.5%) were MSI-low. Positive BRAF V600E expression was observed in 83.9% of patients. Only histopathological subtypes revealed a significant association with BRAF V600E positive expression (p = 0.015).
Conclusions: The majority of sporadic young-onset CRC presented with abdominal pain and advanced cancer stage. Most were microsatellite stable, and most cases showed positive expressions in all MMR markers and BRAF V600E by immunohistochemistry method. This finding will pave the way for further research on this disease.