Academic literature on the topic 'Trustees of the Medical Department of Pennsylvania College'

Abstract Introduction Restless legs syndrome (RLS), an under-recognized sensorimotor condition worldwide, is thought to be a prodromal symptom of Parkinson’s disease as suggested by previous evidences. However, its association with prodromal chemosensory impairments, including olfactory or taste dysfunction, has remained largely unknown. Few studies of small sample sizes were conducted in predominantly Caucasian populations and results were inconsistent. Methods We performed a cross-sectional analysis including 90,337 Chinese adults free of neurodegenerative diseases in the Kailuan study in 2016. Presence of RLS was defined using revised RLS diagnostic criteria and further verified by Cambridge-Hopkins questionnaire for RLS. Perceived olfactory and taste dysfunction was collected via a questionnaire. The association between RLS and perceived olfactory and taste dysfunction was assessed using logistic regression model, adjusting for potential cofounders such as age, sex, smoking, alcohol consumption sleep conditions and medical history. Results RLS was associated with high odds of having perceived olfactory and/or taste dysfunction (adjusted odds ratio =5.92; 95% confidence interval, 3.11, 11.3). The significant association persisted when using Cambridge-Hopkins questionnaire for RLS (adjusted odds ratio =5.55; 95% confidence interval, 2.37-13.0) or when excluding participants with major chronic diseases. Conclusion RLS was associated with increased odds of perceived olfactory and taste dysfunction. Support This research was supported by start-up grant from the College of Health and Human Development and the Department of Nutritional Sciences, Pennsylvania State University, the Institute for CyberScience Seed Grant Program, Pennsylvania State University, and Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province (H2018209318).

Abstract Dr Dorothy Klenke Nash (1898-1976) became the first female neurosurgeon in the United States in 1928 and maintained her status as the country's only female neurosurgeon until 1960. She graduated with her medical degree from the Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons in 1927 and then trained at the Neurologic Institute of New York under Dr Byron Stookey. During her training, she contributed to the advancement of neurosurgical practice through academic research. In 1931, she married Charles B. Nash, and together they had 2 children, George (1932) and Dorothy Patricia (1937). Dr Nash became a senior surgeon at St. Margaret's Hospital in Pittsburgh in 1942. Shortly thereafter, she joined the inaugural University of Pittsburgh Department of Neurosurgery led by Dr Stuart N. Rowe and became an instructor of neurosurgery at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. In acknowledgment of her advocacy for public access to services for mental health and cerebral palsy, Dr Nash was recognized as a Distinguished Daughter of Pennsylvania (1953) and honored by Mercy Hospital (1957), Bryn Mawr College (1960), and Columbia University (1968). She retired from neurosurgical practice in 1965, at which time she devoted herself to her grandchildren and her Catholic faith. She died on March 5, 1976 at the age of 77. With unwavering tenacity, Dr Nash paved the way for all women in neurosurgery.

AbstractObjective:To identify the prevalence and demographic characteristics of food insecurity in a presurgical bariatric population. To date there has been no research on food insecurity in a presurgical bariatric population.Design:Participants completed the ten-item adult food security survey module created by the US Department of Agriculture (USDA), with additional questions related to food shopping behaviours and perceived affordability of post-bariatric supplements. USDA scoring guidelines were used to classify participants as food secure, marginally food secure and food insecure.Setting:Academic medical centre bariatric surgery clinic in Central Pennsylvania, USA.Participants:Adult bariatric surgery candidates (n 174).Results:There was a prevalence of 17·8 % for food insecurity and 27·6 % for marginal food security. Food insecurity was associated with younger age, higher BMI, non-White race/ethnicity, having less than a college education, living in an urban area, receiving Medicaid/Medicare and participating in nutrition assistance programmes. Food-insecure participants endorsed food shopping behaviours that could interfere with postsurgical dietary adherence and perceived post-bariatric supplies as unaffordable or inaccessible.Conclusions:These results highlight the importance of screening bariatric surgical patients for food insecurity. Further study of this important problem within the bariatric population should address effects of food insecurity and related shopping behaviours on postsurgical outcomes and inform the development of programmes to better assist these high-risk patients.

John Young Templeton III was born in 1917 in Portsmouth, Virginia, and graduated from Jefferson Medical College in 1941. He completed his residency training under Dr. John H. Gibbon, Jr., and was the first resident who worked on Gibbon's heart–lung machine. After his training, he remained at Jefferson as an American Cancer Society fellow and Damon Runyon fellow and went on to become the fourth Samuel D. Gross Professor and Chair of the Department of Surgery in 1967. Dr. Templeton was the recipient of numerous grants and published over 80 papers in the field of cardiothoracic surgery. As a teacher and mentor, he was a beloved figure who placed great faith in his residents. He participated in over 60 professional societies, serving as president to many such as the Philadelphia Academy of Surgery and the Pennsylvania Association of Thoracic Surgery. He was also recognized through his many awards, in particular the John Y. Templeton III lectureship established in 1980 at Jefferson of whom Denton Cooley was the first lecturer. Dr. Templeton retired from practice in 1987. He is forever remembered as an important model of a modern surgeon evident in numerous academic achievements, the admiration and affection of his trainees, and the lives of patients that he had touched.

Abstract Objectives This study compared the risk of cancer morbidity and mortality in midlife between Chinese adults who were exposed or were not exposed to the Great Chinese Famine (1959–1961) in utero or during early childhood. Methods The Kailuan Study Participants (n = 101,125) were classified into 5 famine exposure groups by category of the year of birth: after 1961 (unexposed, reference), 1959–1961 (in utero exposed), 1956–1958 (childhood exposed, aged 0.1–2.9 y), 1953–1955 (childhood exposed, aged 3.0–5.9 y), and before 1953 (exposed, aged 6 + y). The exposed groups were further classified by the severity of famine into less-severe or severe groups. Cancer and cancer mortality cases were confirmed by reviewing medical records from hospitals. Cox proportional hazard models were computed to examine the association between famine exposure and composite cancer events of incident cancer and cancer mortality (2006–2016), adjusting for sex, socioeconomic status, cancer-related lifestyle factors, blood C-reactive protein, and lipid profiles. Results During a median of 10.0 years of follow-up, we identified 3,589 incident cancer cases and 1,940 cancer deaths. After adjustment for covariates (eg, sex, socioeconomic status, and cancer-related lifestyle factors), compared to the unexposed group, the hazard ratios (HRs) of the composite cancer events ranged 2.24–2.72 for the in utero exposed and early childhood exposed groups (P < 0.001 for all). When famine severity and cancer risk were examined, stratified by the famine exposure group, severe exposure to famine in early childhood, but not other birth groups was significantly associated with a higher risk of composite cancer events (adjusted HR = 1.96 for 0.1–2.9 years and HR = 1.60 for 3.0–5.9 years; P < 0.001 for both), relative to the less-severe group. When cancer morbidity and mortality were studied separately, similar patterns were observed. Conclusions In utero and early childhood exposures to famine, especially severe famine, were associated with a higher risk of cancer morbidity and mortality later in life. Awareness should be raised regarding the long-term effects of early life nutritional status. Funding Sources This work was supported by the start-up grant from the College of Health and Human Development and the Department of Nutritional Sciences, the Pennsylvania State University.

Abstract Objectives Rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is a chronic, inflammatory autoimmune condition. Because the immune system develops early in life, it is possible that exposure to adversity like famine in utero or during early childhood may have lifelong impacts on risk of autoimmune disease. We thus investigated whether exposure (in utero or in early life) to the Great Chinese Famine of 1959–1961 was associated with risk of RA in adulthood. Methods Included were 101,510 participants of the Kailuan Study that joined the study at baseline (2006). RA cases were confirmed by medical record review. We used logistic regression to calculate the odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI) for RA, according to famine exposure status (exposed in utero, between 0 and 3 years, between 3 and 6 years, or at 6 years or older), in comparison to participants born after 1961 (not exposed to famine). Potential confounders (e.g., sex, body mass index, smoking status, and plasma concentrations of c-reactive protein, low-density lipoprotein and high-density lipoprotein) were adjusted in the model. Results During 12 years of follow-up (2006–2018), we identified 187 RA cases. Individuals exposed to the Famine in utero or in ages 0–3 years, had a higher prevalence of RA, relative to other groups (0.24%–0.35% vs 0.08–0.20%). After adjustment for potential confounders, the OR of RA was 2.70 (95% CI: 1.40 to 5.21) for in utero famine exposed individuals, 4.44 (95% CI: 2.66 to 7.39) for those exposed in age 0–3 y, 2.50 (95% CRI: 1.40 to 4.47) for those exposed in age 3–6 y, and 2.61 (95% CI: 1.63 to 4.18) for those exposed after at least 6 years old versus individuals who were born after 1961. A similar association was observed for men and women (P-interaction = 0.86). Conclusions Individuals with exposure to famine in utero or early childhood (0–3 years), were more likely to suffer from RA in adulthood. This study reflects the importance of early life as a key developmental period for the immune system, and demonstrates that exposure to famine during this time results in increased risk of RA in adulthood. Funding Sources Study funded by start-up grant from the College of Health and Human Development and the Department of Nutritional Sciences, The Pennsylvania State University, and Natural Science Foundation of Hebei Province (H2018209318).

“Research, no matter how ‘good’, is incomplete, until it has been published.”1 In my opinion, otolaryngology residents, fellows and consultants do not lack in research or scholarly capability. However, “the proof of the pudding is (indeed) in the eating,” and scholarly societies are recognized not so much for what goes on within their hallowed halls, but for what are made public outside those walls. Indeed, “publishing” means to make something public.2 And though we may not lack in research, we certainly still lag in publication. I would therefore not be amiss in address the need for PSOHNS fellows, diplomates and trainees to publish, in electronic or hard-copy, in print or other media, including the social media. Because of my background, much of my reflections will deal with writing—but by no means do I mean to limit publication to that of the written word. Why write and publish? “Start Where You Are: Taking Your Place in the History of Scholarship”2 “Similar to others who write (historians and poets), scientists and those involved in research need to write … to leave behind a documented legacy of their accomplishments.”1 Whatever we discover or unearth in the laboratory, clinic or in the field; whether from samples, specimens, subjects, patients or participants; utilizing theoretical or applied instruments, materials and methods; simply “did not happen” unless it is documented and disseminated. In Filipino,“kung hindi nakasulat, hindi nangyari.” How often do we hear comments like “naisip ko na iyan,” or “na-presenta ko na iyan” or even “sinulat ko na iyan” at a scientific meeting where a speaker presents a study. The sad fact of the matter is that many of these colleagues may indeed have had similar thoughts, or delivered previous oral presentations, or even written reports. But because none of these had been properly published, they remain inaccessible to subsequent scholars, and are therefore neither cited nor acknowledged. “While ‘doing’ the research is important, ‘writing’ about why and how it was done, what was found, and what it means is far more important as it serves as a permanent record of scientific work that has been completed and accepted by peers.”1 And writing and publishing are an entirely different ball game from researching alone. Publication, or “making ideas public,” allows “scholars (to) provide each other with the opportunity to build on each other’s contributions, create dialogue (sometimes heated) with one another and join the documented and ongoing history of their field.”2 It is by participating in this “documented and ongoing history” of whatever field we may be in, that we and our specialty society gain international recognition and become internationally competitive. Taking your place in the history of scholarship starts where you are, as an author. Publication involves communication between the author and his or her audience via the written article.3 Unlike public speakers or performing artists, the author’s interaction with the audience is limited by the written and published work. Hence, “a successful researcher is usually a good communicator who has the ability to maximize the transmission of research findings to his or her chosen audience.”1 Setting the Stage: Advantages of Writing and Publication A few may write “for the pleasure derived from the creative activity of writing and intellectual sharing, and the desire to advance knowledge and benefit mankind” and for these individuals, “writing may act as a channel for expressing the joy of scientific discovery, and may even be regarded as a leisurely pursuit.”1 An historical article on Jose Rizal4 that I researched for a year and a half before the occasion of his 150th anniversary and another on the evolution of indirect laryngoscopy5 that I researched for two years are personal examples of these. For most everyone else, there are career, professional, institutional and practical advantages that can be gained from writing and publication.6 As far as career benefits are concerned, “getting published in prestigious, scholarly journals may have the most direct bearing on your appointment, promotion, tenure and advancement within your institution, organization and discipline.”2 The “up or out” situation faced by many young to mid-career academics would have been easily avoided by publishing early. Moreover, publications are the primary basis for promotion and advancement in academe. Professional benefits are just as important. For junior consultants and younger faculty, “having published articles in reputable international journals are a great help when applying for positions in foreign institutions, and when applying for competitive overseas fellowships.”1 As editor of our specialty scholarly journal, I receive numerous urgent requests from postgraduate residents and young diplomates (unaware of the tedious editing and peer review process) to rush-publish research they undertook in training, in fulfillment of publication requirements for overseas positions or fellowships they are applying for. Had they realized this earlier, they would have been much better-prepared. For more established consultants, “gaining recognition as experts in a particular field at regional and international levels leads to invitations to lecture at scientific meetings and refresher courses, and appointments as consultants to external agencies, expert panels and advisory boards, reviewer and editorial boards.”1 Much of my local and international travels are direct offshoots of previous research, lectures and publications. These generate further research and publication opportunities in turn, as track records in research and publication are considered in “applications for, extension of, and further research funding.”1 Closer to home, publication “increases (the) depth of knowledge in a particular subject that complements and hones clinical (practical) skills, and enables better teaching of students, clinical trainees and postgraduates.”1 Indeed, a true professor must have something to profess, and a well-published professor can certainly profess what he or she does more authoritatively. Of course, the practical benefits gained from engaging in the research and publication process cannot be overlooked. The “inherent training gained during the process of manuscript preparation,” the “discipline of performing a thorough literature search, collating and analyzing data and drafting and repeatedly revising the manuscript”1 during the editing and review process, provide undeniable practical benefits to the author. Researchers who have published are much better positioned to evaluate scholarly publications, having themselves experienced the writing, editing and review process. In this era of “information overload” the published researcher can more effectively evaluate and utilize available evidence. Because of institutional benefits, it is in the best interests of our scholarly society to encourage scholarly writing, as “publication in peer-reviewed journals is arguably the most important means to achieve international recognition for an individual, department, hospital, and university.”1 Various international survey and ranking systems place a premium on such publication, explaining why Philippine academic institutions lag behind their counterparts in Asia and the rest of the world. It is also in the best interests of the Philippines that her clinicians, scientists, artists and scholars publish, as “the author’s country, and even the region, may also derive benefit from published work, particularly if it is on a topic of major importance.”1 At least in the medical field, Filipino publications have made their mark, albeit sparsely. The UP College of Medicine and National Health Sciences Journal Acta Medica Philippina is the source of material indelibly inscribed in the world medical map, and we certainly look forward to the Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery doing the same. The generous research allocation for Fellows and full support for our journal by the PSOHNS Board of Trustees are a step in the right direction, as are the annual awarding of the Outstanding ENT Specialist in Research and Editors’ Pick Outstanding Research Publication. In keeping with international practice, we should accord due public recognition to our excellent Reviewers and Editors at official PSOHNS functions such as Annual Conventions, if but for the recognition they reciprocally bring to the society. The American Academy of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery has journal Editors and Star Reviewers wear special ribbons at their Annual Meeting, and openly campaigns for participants to thank these reviewers for their contribution. On another note, I was elected President 2014-2016 of the Asia Pacific Association of Medical Journal Editors during the recent Joint Meeting of APAME and the Western Pacific Region Index Medicus and Index Medicus of the South East Asia Region of WHO in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia last August 15 – 17, 2014. This is fortuitous as we prepare to host the APAME Convention 2015 and Joint Meeting with WPRIM and IMSEAR at the WHO Western Pacific Region Office, Sofitel Hotel and Philippine International Convention Center from August 24-26, 2015 in conjunction with FORUM 2015. The other officers are: Executive Vice President Prof. Jeong-Wook Seo (Korea), Vice President for Internal Affairs is Prof. Kiichiro Tsutani (Japan), Vice President for External Affairs Prof. Dai Tao (China), Secretary-General Prof. Wilfred Peh (Singapore). The Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery is now indexed in the HINARI Access to Research in Health Programme of the World Health Organization www.who.int/hinari making us readily available to a multitude of users from developing countries and increasing our accessibility tremendously. Our society and journal can be accessed via http://extranet.who.int/hinari/en/browse_publisher.php?pub=695 In addition, APAMED Central (on which the Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery is indexed) has been formally ratified for indexing in the worldwidescience.org database during the World Wide Science Alliance annual meeting in Tokyo last October 2014. Henceforth, all articles from Oct 19 2014, including this issue, will be searchable on this database. Finally, I am especially thankful to our President and my friend, Howard M. Enriquez, MD and the PSOHNS Board of Trustees (especially the Scientific Committee Chair and my friend Elmo R. Lago, Jr., MD) for the support given to me, and our journal on my ninth year as Editor-in-Chief.

Harry Harris was born on 30 September 1919. He was one of the most influential scientists in the field of human genetics during the postwar period in Britain up to 1976, and after that in the United States until his death in July 1994. With his extensive laboratory research on the patterns of human genetic diversity in health and disease, Harris became the acknowledged world leader in human biochemical genetics and assumed the mantle of Archibald Garrod, the founding father. He demonstrated in a series of experiments commenced in 1960, that genetic variation in man (and by implication, other species) was not something rare and unusual and was not always associated with disease. Variation was shown to be commonplace and usually harmless. Harris was also the first to draw attention to the fact that we are all individually different in our genetic constitution and, using simple biochemical tests on isozymes, was able to demonstrate that no two individuals except for identical twins are exactly alike in their genetic make-up. This work prepared the ground for many of the current well known genetic concepts and applied procedures, such as the identification of individuals by DNA ‘fingerprints’ and prenatal diagnosis of genetic disorders. It also led directly to mapping human genes on chromosomes and to the demonstration of considerable allelic heterogeneity in inherited disease. He wrote extensively about his work in research papers and reviews and a series of very influential books (see accompanying Bibliography on microfiche). His first book was An Introduction to Human Biochemical Genetics in 1953 and his last the enlarged 3rd edition of his Principles of Human Biochemical Genetics in 1980. He delivered more than 20 named lectures (see accompanying Bibliography on microfiche) and some of these were also published. Most of his career in the U.K. was centred in London. Following appointments in genetics and in biochemistry at University College, London, and at the London Hospital Medical College, Harris served as Professor and Head of the Department of Biochemistry at King’s College, London, from 1960-65. In 1961 he persuaded the M.R.C. to set up the Human Biochemical Genetics Unit and he was the Honorary Director of this Unit until 1976. In 1965 he was appointed Galton Professor of Genetics and Biometry, back at U.C.L. Then with a final flourish he left England in 1976 to take up the Harnwell Chair in Human Genetics at the University of Pennsylvania, where he worked on a variety of topics until he retired with great reluctance in 1990. Harry Harris was widely honoured and recognized for his major contributions to genetics. He was elected as a Fellow of the Royal Society in 1966, Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians in 1973, Foreign Associate of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S.A. in 1976, Doctor Honoris Causa by the Université René Descartes, Paris in 1976. He also received the William Allen Memorial Award from the American Society of Human Genetics in 1968. Harry Harris had an outstanding career which was devoted to science but sadly shortened by chronic diabetes and he had only a brief glimpse of retirement.

The trustees of Transylvania University offered Horace the presidency in the fall of 1817; he first declined but then agreed to suspend judgment until he visited the campus. His journey from Boston to Lexington commenced in the early spring of 1818. On his way, Horace hoped to investigate notable institutions of higher learning, the state of religious feelings in the United States, and the general condition of American society. He recorded his visits to Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth, the medical college of Maryland, and the University of Pennsylvania in his travel diary and in letters to his wife and family. This chapter concludes with a discussion of Horace’s intentions and early attempts to modify established educational ideas within his new surroundings.