Did someone say “farmer-centric”? Digital tools for spatially distributed on-farm experimentation

On-farm experimentation (OFE) embeds the conduct of agronomic research within normal farm business operations such that experiments are driven by farmers’ needs for business improvement, albeit enabled and facilitated by collaborating ‘experts’ in a process of co-learning. Because experiments are laid down using the farmers’ own equipment in their own fields and at a scale that is consistent with the scale at which farm management decisions are made, it provides them with a salient, credible and legitimate means of creating knowledge for effective application that is valuable to the individual farmer in their field and farm, and potentially to neighbouring farmers in a region. Here, with a particular view to the potential application of OFE in Australian farming systems, we consider the synergies between OFE and the use of precision agriculture (PA) technologies such as yield monitors, crop and soil sensors, and variable rate application of inputs. Indeed, it is suggested that whilst the tools of PA greatly facilitate the conduct of OFE, it is arguably the case that OFE is an essential part of the optimal deployment of PA. We also address statistical issues associated with OFE conducted using PA, including the use of replication, randomization for experimental design, and concerns about spatial autocorrelation in data collected at the within-field scale. However, whilst farmers are generally disengaged from data analysis and place greater emphasis on the magnitude of gross effects and benefit:cost than on statistical significance, they nevertheless want robust and interpretable results. Accordingly, we identify some tools which facilitate simple assessment of alternative management actions across the range of variation in the production systems which farmers encounter. The need for farmer-trustworthy systems of data governance and data sharing amongst those engaged in OFE is also highlighted

Current worldwide nuclear cardiology practices andradiationexposure: results from the 65 country IAEA nuclear cardiology protocols cross-sectional study (INCAPS)

Aims To characterize patient radiation doses from nuclear myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and the use of radiationoptimizing 'best practices' worldwide, and to evaluate the relationship between laboratory use of best practices and patient radiation dose. Methods and results We conducted an observational cross-sectional study of protocols used for all 7911 MPI studies performed in 308 nuclear cardiology laboratories in 65 countries for a single week in March-April 2013. Eight 'best practices' relating to radiation exposurewere identified a priori by an expert committee, and a radiation-related quality index (QI) devised indicating the number of best practices used by a laboratory. Patient radiation effective dose (ED) ranged between 0.8 and 35.6 mSv (median 10.0 mSv). Average laboratory ED ranged from 2.2 to 24.4 mSv (median 10.4 mSv); only 91 (30%) laboratories achieved the median ED ≤ 9 mSv recommended by guidelines. Laboratory QIs ranged from 2 to 8 (median 5). Both ED and QI differed significantly between laboratories, countries, and world regions. The lowest median ED (8.0 mSv), in Europe, coincided with high best-practice adherence (mean laboratory QI 6.2). The highest doses (median 12.1 mSv) and low QI (4.9) occurred in Latin America. In hierarchical regression modelling, patients undergoing MPI at laboratories following more 'best practices' had lower EDs Conclusion Marked worldwide variation exists in radiation safety practices pertaining to MPI, with targeted EDs currently achieved in a minority of laboratories. The significant relationship between best-practice implementation and lower doses indicates numerous opportunities to reduce radiation exposure from MPI globally

Nuclear cardiology practice and associated radiation doses in Europe: results of the IAEA Nuclear Cardiology Protocols Study (INCAPS) for the 27 European countries

Purpose: Nuclear cardiology is widely used to diagnose coronary artery disease and to guide patient management, but data on current practices, radiation dose-related best practices, and radiation doses are scarce. To address these issues, the IAEA conducted a worldwide study of nuclear cardiology practice. We present the European subanalysis. Methods: In March 2013, the IAEA invited laboratories across the world to document all SPECT and PET studies performed in one week. The data included age, gender, weight, radiopharmaceuticals, injected activities, camera type, positioning, hardware and software. Radiation effective dose was calculated for each patient. A quality score was defined for each laboratory as the number followed of eight predefined best practices with a bearing on radiation exposure (range of quality score 0 – 8). The participating European countries were assigned to regions (North, East, South, and West). Comparisons were performed between the four European regions and between Europe and the rest-of-the-world (RoW). Results: Data on 2,381 European patients undergoing nuclear cardiology procedures in 102 laboratories in 27 countries were collected. A cardiac SPECT study was performed in 97.9 % of the patients, and a PET study in 2.1 %. The average effective dose of SPECT was 8.0 ± 3.4 mSv (RoW 11.4 ± 4.3 mSv; P < 0.001) and of PET was 2.6 ± 1.5 mSv (RoW 3.8 ± 2.5 mSv; P < 0.001). The mean effective doses of SPECT and PET differed between European regions (P < 0.001 and P = 0.002, respectively). The mean quality score was 6.2 ± 1.2, which was higher than the RoW score (5.0 ± 1.1; P < 0.001). Adherence to best practices did not differ significantly among the European regions (range 6 to 6.4; P = 0.73). Of the best practices, stress-only imaging and weight-adjusted dosing were the least commonly used. Conclusion: In Europe, the mean effective dose from nuclear cardiology is lower and the average quality score is higher than in the RoW. There is regional variation in effective dose in relation to the best practice quality score. A possible reason for the differences between Europe and the RoW could be the safety culture fostered by actions under the Euratom directives and the implementation of diagnostic reference levels. Stress-only imaging and weight-adjusted activity might be targets for optimization of European nuclear cardiology practice