[Between clinical and forensic imaging : Differences, similarities and legal framework]. / Zwischen klinischer und forensischer Bildgebung : Unterschiede, Gemeinsamkeiten und rechtliche Rahmenbedingungen.

Clinical imaging uses a variety of medical imaging techniques to diagnose and monitor diseases, injuries and other health conditions. These include X­ray images, computed tomography (CT), magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound. These procedures are used to make accurate diagnoses and plan the best possible treatment for patients. Forensic imaging, in contrast, is used in both living and deceased persons in the context of criminal investigations. Postmortem forensic imaging techniques, such as postmortem CT (PMCT) and postmortem CT angiography (PMCTA), include some of the same procedures used in clinical imaging. An important difference between clinical and forensic imaging is the purpose and context in which the imaging studies are used. In addition, radiological procedures, such as angiography, need to be adapted and modified in the post-mortem setting. From a legal perspective clinical and forensic imaging must strictly adhere to privacy and procedural guidelines. Forensic images often need to be admissible as evidence in court, which places specific requirements on the quality, authenticity and documentation of images. In the case of living individuals, there must be a valid indication and consent from the patient. Consent must also fundamentally be obtained for post-mortem examinations, e.g. from the public prosecutor's office.

The "Mellanby effect" in alcoholised e-scooter drivers.

PURPOSE: Several studies tried to discuss and clarify the so-called Mellanby effect: Similar blood alcohol concentrations (BACs) supposedly lead to more signs of impairment in the phase of alcohol resorption than elimination. To assess this effect for alcoholised e-scooter driving, results of a real-driving fitness study were subanalysed. METHODS: Sixteen subjects (9 females; 7 males) who completed runs at comparable BACs in the phases of alcohol resorption and elimination were chosen to assess a possible "Mellanby effect". The data of the subjects was taken from a prior e-scooter study by Zube et al., which included 63 subjects in total. RESULTS: In the phase of alcohol resorption, the relative driving performance was approx. 92% of the phase of elimination (p value 0.21). Statistically significant more demerits were allocated to the obstacle "narrowing track" in the phase of resorption than elimination. Subjects also needed significantly more time to pass the obstacles "narrowing track", "driving in circles counterclockwise" and "thresholds" in the phase of resorption than elimination. DISCUSSION: The most relevant obstacle to discriminate between the two different states of alcoholisation was the narrowing track. Insofar, measurements of the standard deviation of the lateral position (SDLP) might also be a sensitive component for the detection of central nervous driving impairment during shorter trips with an e-scooter. Additionally, driving slower during the phase of alcohol resorption seems to be the attempt to compensate alcohol-related deficits. CONCLUSION: The results of the study suggest a slight Mellanby effect in e-scooter drivers.