Skin-on-a-chip technologies towards clinical translation and commercialization.

Skin is the largest organ of the human body which plays a critical role in thermoregulation, metabolism (e.g. synthesis of vitamin D), and protection of other organs from environmental threats, such as infections, microorganisms, ultraviolet radiation, and physical damage. Even though skin diseases are considered to be less fatal, the ubiquity of skin diseases and irritation caused by them highlights the importance of skin studies. Furthermore, skin is a promising means for transdermal drug delivery, which requires a thorough understanding of human skin structure. Current animal andin vitrotwo/three-dimensional skin models provide a platform for disease studies and drug testing, whereas they face challenges in the complete recapitulation of the dynamic and complex structure of actual skin tissue. One of the most effective methods for testing pharmaceuticals and modeling skin diseases are skin-on-a-chip (SoC) platforms. SoC technologies provide a non-invasive approach for examining 3D skin layers and artificially creating disease models in order to develop diagnostic or therapeutic methods. In addition, SoC models enable dynamic perfusion of culture medium with nutrients and facilitate the continuous removal of cellular waste to further mimic thein vivocondition. Here, the article reviews the most recent advances in the design and applications of SoC platforms for disease modeling as well as the analysis of drugs and cosmetics. By examining the contributions of different patents to the physiological relevance of skin models, the review underscores the significant shift towards more ethical and efficient alternatives to animal testing. Furthermore, it explores the market dynamics ofin vitroskin models and organ-on-a-chip platforms, discussing the impact of legislative changes and market demand on the development and adoption of these advanced research tools. This article also identifies the existing obstacles that hinder the advancement of SoC platforms, proposing directions for future improvements, particularly focusing on the journey towards clinical adoption.

Standardized cine-loop documentation in renal ultrasound facilitates skill-mix between radiographer and radiologist.

BACKGROUND: The radiographers' role in ultrasound (US) has been debated due to the operator-dependent aspect of diagnostic US. With standardized cine-loop ultrasound (SCUS) a reliable diagnosis can be achieved by reading SCUS independently from performing the procedure. PURPOSE: To study the correlation between sonographic findings when SCUS is performed and read by a radiologist and when SCUS is performed by a radiographer and read by a radiologist, and to assess the radiologists' confidence when reading SCUS examinations performed by a radiographer. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Thirty-four patients (64 kidneys) who underwent SCUS of the kidneys were included in this study. All patients underwent two consecutive SCUS examinations, one performed by an experienced radiologist reading his own examination (online), and one performed by a SCUS-trained radiographer, read by an experienced radiologist who was not involved in the examination of the patient (offline). Study reports were made using a structured report form designed for this study. Confidence was measured on a visual analog scale ranging from 0 (no confidence) to 100 (extremely confident). The final diagnosis (the reference standard) was defined as the consensus between two US-experienced radiologists. All personnel were blinded to each other's results. RESULTS: We found discordance between image findings for online and offline in eight out of 64 kidneys. There was no systematic difference between online and offline reading. There was a good correlation between online and offline, kappa 0.75 (95% CI 0.60-0.90, P < 0.001). Kappa correlation for online and offline compared to reference standard was 0.94 (95% CI 0.86-1.00, P < 0.001) and 0.81 (95% CI 0.66-0.96, P < 0.001), respectively. Radiologists reported a confidence level of 88 (range, 74-94) and 85 (range, 67-92) in the online and offline group, respectively (P = 0.005). CONCLUSION: There is a high degree of correlation between reported findings in radiologist and radiographer performed SCUS examinations.