MyMedR

Displaying all 5 publications

Abstract:

Sort:

The Sulu-Sulawesi Sea: environmental and socioeconomic status, future prognosis and ameliorative policy options

DeVantier L, Alcala A, Wilkinson C

Ambio, 2004 Feb;33(1-2):88-97.
PMID: 15083654

The Sulu-Sulawesi Sea, with neighboring Indonesian Seas and South China Sea, lies at the center of the world's tropical marine biodiversity. Encircled by 3 populous, developing nations, the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia, the Sea and its adjacent coastal and terrestrial ecosystems, supports ca. 33 million people, most with subsistence livelihoods heavily reliant on its renewable natural resources. These resources are being impacted severely by rapid population growth (> 2% yr-1, with expected doubling by 2035) and widespread poverty, coupled with increasing international market demand and rapid technological changes, compounded by inefficiencies in governance and a lack of awareness and/or acceptance of some laws among local populations, particularly in parts of the Philippines and Indonesia. These key root causes all contribute to illegal practices and corruption, and are resulting in severe resource depletion and degradation of water catchments, river, lacustrine, estuarine, coastal, and marine ecosystems. The Sulu-Sulawesi Sea forms a major geopolitical focus, with porous borders, transmigration, separatist movements, piracy, and illegal fishing all contributing to environmental degradation, human suffering and political instability, and inhibiting strong trilateral support for interventions. This review analyzes these multifarious environmental and socioeconomic impacts and their root causes, provides a future prognosis of status by 2020, and recommends policy options aimed at amelioration through sustainable management and development.
Study on the performance of different craniofacial superimposition approaches (II): Best practices proposal

Damas S, Wilkinson C, Kahana T, Veselovskaya E, Abramov A, Jankauskas R, et al.

Forensic Sci Int, 2015 Dec;257:504-508.
PMID: 26482539 DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.07.045

Craniofacial superimposition, although existing for one century, is still a controversial technique within the scientific community. Objective and unbiased validation studies over a significant number of cases are required to establish a more solid picture on the reliability. However, there is lack of protocols and standards in the application of the technique leading to contradictory information concerning reliability. Instead of following a uniform methodology, every expert tends to apply his own approach to the problem, based on the available technology and deep knowledge on human craniofacial anatomy, soft tissues, and their relationships. The aim of this study was to assess the reliability of different craniofacial superimposition methodologies and the corresponding technical approaches to this type of identification. With all the data generated, some of the most representative experts in craniofacial identification joined in a discussion intended to identify and agree on the most important issues that have to be considered to properly employ the craniofacial superimposition technique. As a consequence, the consortium has produced the current manuscript, which can be considered the first standard in the field; including good and bad practices, sources of error and uncertainties, technological requirements and desirable features, and finally a common scale for the craniofacial matching evaluation. Such a document is intended to be part of a more complete framework for craniofacial superimposition, to be developed during the FP7-founded project MEPROCS, which will favour and standardize its proper application.
Study on the performance of different craniofacial superimposition approaches (I)

Ibáñez O, Vicente R, Navega DS, Wilkinson C, Jayaprakash PT, Huete MI, et al.

Forensic Sci Int, 2015 Dec;257:496-503.
PMID: 26060056 DOI: 10.1016/j.forsciint.2015.05.030

As part of the scientific tasks coordinated throughout The 'New Methodologies and Protocols of Forensic Identification by Craniofacial Superimposition (MEPROCS)' project, the current study aims to analyse the performance of a diverse set of CFS methodologies and the corresponding technical approaches when dealing with a common dataset of real-world cases. Thus, a multiple-lab study on craniofacial superimposition has been carried out for the first time. In particular, 26 participants from 17 different institutions in 13 countries were asked to deal with 14 identification scenarios, some of them involving the comparison of multiple candidates and unknown skulls. In total, 60 craniofacial superimposition problems divided in two set of females and males. Each participant follow her/his own methodology and employed her/his particular technological means. For each single case they were asked to report the final identification decision (either positive or negative) along with the rationale supporting the decision and at least one image illustrating the overlay/superimposition outcome. This study is expected to provide important insights to better understand the most convenient characteristics of every method included in this study.
Study on the criteria for assessing skull-face correspondence in craniofacial superimposition

Ibáñez O, Valsecchi A, Cavalli F, Huete MI, Campomanes-Alvarez BR, Campomanes-Alvarez C, et al.

Leg Med (Tokyo), 2016 Nov;23:59-70.
PMID: 27890106 DOI: 10.1016/j.legalmed.2016.09.009

Craniofacial superimposition has the potential to be used as an identification method when other traditional biological techniques are not applicable due to insufficient quality or absence of ante-mortem and post-mortem data. Despite having been used in many countries as a method of inclusion and exclusion for over a century it lacks standards. Thus, the purpose of this research is to provide forensic practitioners with standard criteria for analysing skull-face relationships. Thirty-seven experts from 16 different institutions participated in this study, which consisted of evaluating 65 criteria for assessing skull-face anatomical consistency on a sample of 24 different skull-face superimpositions. An unbiased statistical analysis established the most objective and discriminative criteria. Results did not show strong associations, however, important insights to address lack of standards were provided. In addition, a novel methodology for understanding and standardizing identification methods based on the observation of morphological patterns has been proposed.
Practice of dialysis access interventional nephrology procedures in the Asia-Pacific region: Getting lay of the land

Jasuja S, Gallieni M, Jha V, Vachharajani T, Bhalla AK, Tan J, et al.

Nephrology (Carlton), 2023 Dec;28(12):672-681.
PMID: 37697492 DOI: 10.1111/nep.14236

AIM: This cross-sectional survey aimed to determine the prevalence of Interventional Nephrology (IN) practice amongst nephrologists in the Asia-Pacific Region (APR), specifically related to dialysis access (DA).
METHODS: The Association of VA and intervenTionAl Renal physicians (AVATAR) Foundation from India conducted a multinational online survey amongst nephrologists from the Asia-Pacific to determine the practice of IN in the planning, creation, and management of dialysis access. The treatment modalities, manpower and equipment availability, monthly cost of treatment, specifics of dialysis access interventions, and challenges in the training and practice of IN by nephrologists were included in the survey.
RESULTS: Twenty-one countries from the APR participated in the survey. Nephrologists from 18 (85.7%) countries reported performing at least one of the basic dialysis access-related IN procedures, primarily the placement of non-tunnelled central catheters (n-TCC; 71.5%). Only 10 countries (47.6%) reported having an average of <4% of nephrologists performing any of the advanced IN access procedures, the most common being the placement of a peritoneal dialysis (PD) catheter (20%). Lack of formal training (57.14%), time (42.8%), incentive (38%), institutional support (38%), medico-legal protection (28.6%), and prohibitive cost (23.8%) were the main challenges to practice IN. The primary obstacles to implementing the IN training were a lack of funding and skilled personnel.
CONCLUSION: The practice of dialysis access-related IN in APR is inadequate, mostly due to a lack of training, backup support, and economic constraints, whereas training in access-related IN is constrained by a lack of a skilled workforce and finances.