Short-Communication | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2690-4861/167
*Corresponding Author: Abdulwahab Alahmari, Radiology Specialist, Ministry of Health, Abha, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
Citation: A Alahmari. (2021). Numbers in radiology and personalized medicine: A commentary. International Journal of Clinical Case Reports and Reviews. 8(3); DOI:10.31579/2690-4861/167
Copyright: © 2021 Abdulwahab Alahmari, This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 16 August 2021 | Accepted: 04 September 2021 | Published: 13 September 2021
Keywords: numbers; radiology; reference value; personalized medicine; criteria
Some of the numbers in radiology used as a criteria to make or role out a diagnosis for some conditions. These numbers should not be taken for granted since personalized medicine state that every patient is different and should be treated based on his/her condition. Those numbers can’t be used as a golden slandered in all case. This commentary will focus on some examples where numbers as a criteria failed or made the diagnosis impossible.
A case of a 47−old female with facial and neck pain which fits with symptoms of eagle syndrome. The length of the elongated styloid processes were and measured 3.1 cm and 3.15 cm but both measurement are below the number criteria which are 3.2 cm. The elongated styloid processes and ossified stylo-hyoid ligaments on both sides cause compression on facial and neck nerves which result in severe pain.
Another example is herniated cerebellum or cerebellar tensile with or without brainstem involvement which divided into benign tonsillar ectopia or low−lying tonsils (<5>5 mm) tonsils only herniated, Chiari malformation I (>5 mm), Chiari malformation 1.5 (>12 mm) tonsils and brainstem herniated, etc. These numbers for all symptomatic or asymptomatic patients. The numbers used in the criteria are not useful with many patients. Similar to anatomical variations there are reference values variations as well.
Any cerebral calcification must be above 300 HU to be considered a calcification, but there are countless patient with dural calcifications that scores below 300 HU, so the number criteria is not practical again. Another example is the exposure factors which vary from an obese patient to a slim patient, an adult to a child, a pregnant (who have a medical necessity) to a non-pregnant women. Even in the same category for example a neonate need a different exposure factors compared to a one−year old baby and both are in the pediatric category. Another example, the amount of intravenous (IV) contrast media which has a specific rule which is a 1 and ½ millimeter for each kilogram which sometime is not low contrast media in many cases based on clinical experience. Another example is radiation dose where a some radiation does might cause too much harm to a particular individual and make no harm to another individual.
All the previous examples prove one point that personalized medicine must be used more in radiology. Not all the standard numbers and reference values are carved in stone and can’t be changed. Plus, every person is different and these numbers are used to help us, but they can be neglected when it becomes a contradictory and limitation factor.
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Medical Reviews and Reports. My experience with the journal was highly positive. The peer-review process was rigorous, constructive, and completed in a timely manner. The reviewers provided valuable comments that helped improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout all stages of the publication process. Communication was clear and efficient, and any questions were addressed promptly. Overall, I found the journal to maintain high scientific standards and an excellent publication workflow. I would be pleased to consider submitting future work to this journal. Best wishes from, Elena Popa.
It was my pleasure to submit my testimonial concerning the Reviewer Board of our Scientific Journal “Brain and Neurological Disorders”. The Reviewers focused on some modifications and their contribution was helpful. The ladies of our Editorial Office were also supported my efforts. It was my honor to have such a co-operation and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Thank you for the speedy and efficient peer review process. I appreciate the fact that your peer reviewers do not take months to respond like with some other journals. I would also like to thank the editorial office for responding quickly to my questions. It is an excellent journal. I plan to submit more manuscripts in the future. Best wishes from, Robert W. McGee
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Working with you and your team on our recent publication in JCRR has been a truly wonderful and enjoyable experience. The responses were prompt, and the reviewers were patient, constructive, and highly professional. One reviewer in particular gave me the feeling that a professor was carefully reading and commenting on my coursework, which was deeply touching. The entire process was straightforward and hassle‑free, with no tedious online forms to complete. I highly recommend this journal. Best wishes from, DR Aibing Rao, Head of R&D
I Appreciate the Opportunity to Share my Experience with the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. The peer review process was timely and constructive, and the feedback provided helped improve the quality of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout the process, ensuring smooth communication and efficient handling of the submission. Overall, it was a positive experience collaborating with your team.
Dear Mercy Grace, Editorial Coordinator of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, We would like to express our gratitude for your help at all stages of publishing and editing the article. The editors of the magazine answer all the necessary questions and help at every stage. We will definitely continue to cooperate and publish other works in the Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences! Best wishes from, Alla Konstantinovna Politova,
