Did you know that Pocahontas probably never fell in love with John Smith, as the Disney and other film versions of those events pretend? That Godzilla was originally an anti-American and anti-nuclear movie, heavily cut and supplemented with new material? That Zorro was not created by an American author but derived from the much older Mexican struggle for independence? That Anna and the King was largely invented? That the myth of the sexually eager Hula girls is based on misunderstandings by the first explorers? That Black Hawk Down and many other war movies were censored and indirectly subsidized by the Pentagon? Screening Difference takes us on a fascinating voyage through major movie blockbusters that deal with the encounter between "us," based on white Hollywood, and "them," the filmic representations of other races, ethnicities, and cultures. Looking at subtle orientations in casting and make-up, sets and props, lighting and camera movements, music and language, this lively book follows the best-known genres and subgenres: from animated cartoons to wilderness films, from romantic movies to colonial adventures. Screening Difference tracks the stories back to their origins and patiently dissects the hidden messages that have gradually crept into them.

Screening programmes involve the systematic offer of testing for populations or groups of apparently healthy people to identify individuals who may be at future risk of a particular medical condition or disease, with the aim of offering intervention to reduce their risk. For many years, screening was practised without debate, and without evidence, but in the 1960s serious challenges were raised about many of the screening procedures then being practised. Benefits and harms of screening must be measured in high quality trials, and the benefits of screening must be weighed alongside the negative side-effects. Concerns were raised about potential and actual harm arising when people without a health problem received dangerous and unnecessary investigations and treatments as a result of routine screening tests. Controversy raged, and it took some 50 years to achieve widespread recognition that evidence-based and quality assured programme delivery was essential, coupled with provision of balanced informed to enable informed choice for potential participants. Commercially motivated provision of poor quality and non-evidence based screening tests is increasing and screening remains a highly contested topic that has relevance in all health systems including for the general public and media. This book serves as a practical and comprehensive guide to all aspects of screening. Following the international success of the first edition, this second edition brings extensive updates and new case study material. The first section deals with concepts, methods, and evidence, charts the story of screening back to 1861, and covers all aspects of a screening programme and how to research the full consequences. The second section is a practical guide to sound policy-making and to high quality delivery of best value screening. The controversies, paradoxes, uncertainties, and ethical dilemmas of screening are explained, and each chapter is packed with examples, real-life case histories, helpful summary points, and self-test questions. Reference is made to the NHS, a leader in screening, but the primary focus is on universal principles, making the book highly relevant across the globe.

This concise, self-contained and cohesive book focuses on commonly used and recently developed methods for designing and analyzing high-throughput screening (HTS) experiments from a statistically sound basis. Combining ideas from biology, computing and statistics, the author explains experimental designs and analytic methods that are amenable to rigorous analysis and interpretation of RNAi HTS experiments. The opening chapters are carefully presented to be accessible both to biologists with training only in basic statistics and to computational scientists and statisticians with basic biological knowledge. Biologists will see how new experiment designs and rudimentary data-handling strategies for RNAi HTS experiments can improve their results, whereas analysts will learn how to apply recently developed statistical methods to interpret HTS experiments.

This book is a comprehensive guide to lung cancer screening for clinicians, healthcare systems, community leaders, and public health officials with the hope of creating a more equitable landscape in both lung cancer screening and lung cancer-related outcomes, at local, state, and national levels. Authors take a new approach to primary and secondary lung cancer prevention that is in the early stages of adoption in the United States. The last decade ushered in recognition of screening as an effective intervention, but unfortunately, despite the wide acceptance of the importance of this new screening modality, nationally, not more than 5% of eligible subjects have undergone screening to date in the United States, although in some states uptake has reached as high as 16%. As is common with any new preventive cancer screening, racial and socioeconomic disparities emerge in utilization, stage at diagnosis, and mortality. Over time, these disparities decline, but consequential differences endure. Therefore, it is critical to establish equitable screening practices. The true measure of the effectiveness of any lung cancer screening program needs to be viewed through the lens of its impact on populations, including those most affected by the morbidity and mortality of smoking-related illness and lung cancer. As such, this book emphasizes a number of important public health topics, including community outreach to vulnerable populations, social justice issues, addressing stigma and fatalism in the general community, and the use of geocoding to assess a program’s impact at a population level. This book weaves traditional topics related to lung cancer screening, such as promoting initial and repeat screening, interpreting Lung RADs, and managing the follow-up of findings, into the population perspective in order to present a unified, comprehensive approach to the subject. Further, it serves as a guide that health systems, health care professionals, community leaders, and other stakeholders can use to achieve the promise of lung cancer screening.

Lung Cancer Screening is reviewed extensively in this important Thoracic Surgery Clinics of North America issue. Articles include: CT screening: The Early Lung Cancer Action Program Experience; Lung Cancer Screening: The Mayo Experience; National Lung Screening Trial; Health Risks from CT Lung Cancer Screening; The European Perspective of Lung Cancer Screening; Surgeons and Lung Cancer Screening: Rules of Engagement; The National Comprehensive Cancer Network Recommendations for Lung Cancer Screening; The United States Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations for Lung Cancer Screening; Current Estimate of Costs of Lung Cancer Screening in the US; Refining Strategies to Identify Population to be Screened for Lung Cancer; Long-term Oncologic and Financial Implications of Lung Cancer Screening; and more!

An evaluation was made of the separate screening of aerial photos prior to interpretation as a technique for improving performance in the quick-time extraction of information from imagery under varying conditions of frame overlap and image quality. Rolls of positive transparencies were interpreted by 48 interpreters under two conditions: In one condition, the photos had been screened by experienced interpreters; in the other, interpreters used normal Hot Report techniques combining frame selection and target identification in one process. Zero overlap and 50 percent overlap and two levels of image quality were represented in the imagery. On the first trial, half the subjects interpreted preselected imagery, half used regular techniques; on the second trial, procedures were reversed for the two groups. Interpreter performance was evaluated in terms of screening efficiency, accuracy and completeness of interpretation, time and rate of interpretation, and errors. The separate screening procedure added significantly to interpretation time. Overlapping imagery added significantly to interpretation time without increasing accuracy or completeness. The slight difference in image quality introduced did not seriously affect processing time. Accuracy of both screening and interpretation was lower with the lower quality imagery. Screening was more seriously affected than was interpretation. On the basis of evidence, screening cannot be recommended as a useful procedure in rapid interpretation. (Author).