Search

The aim of this study was to clarify the relationship between accessing the identity of a face and making decisions about its expression. Three experiments are reported in which undergraduate subjects made expression decisions about familiar and unfamiliar faces. The decision was slowed either by concealing the mouth region with a black rectangle (experiment 1) or by using a short presentation time (experiments 2 and 3). Results of experiment 1 showed that subjects recognized the displayed expression of celebrities better than those of unknown persons when information from the mouth was not available. Results of experiment 2 showed that they recognized the expression displayed by celebrities more easily when the presentation time was short. Experiment 3, using familiarized faces, replicated the results of experiments 1 and 2 and ruled out a possible explanation of these results by the use of some identity specific representations that are expressive. Implications for face recognition models are discussed.

IntroductionEndoscopic Submucosal Dissection (ESD) is still limited in Western countries. The phase of submucosal dissection is the most challenging one due to the reduced visibility of the dissection plane. The Clip-Band traction method has shown to be useful and safe in animal models. This study aimed to evaluate the results of gastric ESD in humans with this method.MethodPatients with epithelial gastric neoplasias as indicated for endoscopic resection according to the expanded Japanese criteria, underwent ESD with different knives plus the Clip-Band method. Performance of ESD, en bloc/curative resection, histological diagnosis and complications were evaluated.Results21 lesions (19 patients; age 68 years±10 years) by four endoscopists (16,2,2,1 cases). According to Paris Classification there were 8(IIa), 2(IIa+IIb), 3(IIa+IIc), 1(Ib), 1(Ib+Ic), 1(IIc+III),1(l+lla) and 4 subepithelial lesions. Location was in the upper body (1), mid body (4), lower body (10), antrum (6). The time (median, range) for the circumferential cutting was 22 min (2-100), for the dissection after having applied the traction method 18 min (5-126), and the total dissection time 55 min (6-171). The maximum diameter(median, range) of the specimen was 3.0 cm (1.1–4.7), and the dissection speed (median, range) was 0.085cm2/min(0.03–0.35). There were neuroendocrine tumours(3), inflammatory fibroid polyp (1), neoplasia (17) (Low grade intraepithelial neoplasia 3, high grade intraepitheial neoplasia 7, Intramucosal carcinoma 7). En bloc resection was achieved in all cases; in 2 neuroendocrine lesions the vertical margin was positive (one of them requiring additional surgery). There was one case of delayed bleeding.ConclusionThe Clip-Band method for gastric ESD provides good results, and can be applied in different gastric locations. The dissection phase is simplified, as the time for the dissection phase (the most challenging part of gastric ESD) is similar to the time for circumferential cutting. However randomised studies will be required to prove this.Disclosure of InterestNone Declared

IntroductionRadiofrequency ablation (RFA) is widely accepted as the treatment of choice for dysplastic Barrett’s oesophagus (BO) without visible lesions. Currently a new simplified protocol reduces repeated intubation for the treatment of Barrett’s oesophagus (BO). We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the simplified protocol compared to the standard one.MethodWe analysed data retrospectively from a prospectively collected Barrett’s database from a single tertiary referral UK Centre. All consecutive patients who underwent RFA treatment for Barrett’s dysplasia from 1stof June 2012 to 31stof October 2016 were included. The new simplified protocol was adopted in our unit from October 2014. The simplified protocol omits cleaning in between ablations, reduces the total number of ablations (2 for the circumferential device and 3 for the focal devices vs. 4 ablations) and the amount of energy delivered (10J vs. 12 J for circumferential device and 12J vs. 15J for focal devices). Hospital records were reviewed and demographics, type of RFA device, RFA protocol, endoscopic resection (ER) prior/during RFA and post-RFA complications were collected. Patients who had received both the standard and the simplified protocols were excluded from the analysis.ResultsA total of 97 patients (82.4% male; mean age 67.2±9.2 years, median Barrett’s length C4M6) received at least one RFA session. ER of visible lesions was performed in 32 patients (32.9%) prior to RFA and in 32 patients (32.9%) during the RFA treatment. The standard protocol was used in 30 patients for a total of 89 sessions (16 circumferential, 73 focal) and the simplified protocol in 67 patients for 154 sessions (45 circumferential, 109 focal).5 patients developed symptomatic strictures requiring dilatation. All 5 patients had been treated with simplified protocol (4 circumferential and 1 focal).Other complications included chest pain (n=3) and fever (n=2) managed conservatively, mild bleeding (n=3) successfully managed endoscopically and one severe bleeding which required blood transfusion. No perforations occurred. Complete remission of any dysplasia (CR-DYS) was achieved in 28/29 patients (96.5%) and complete remission of intestinal metaplasia (CR-IM) in 25/29 patients (86.2%) in the standard protocol group. CR-DYS was achieved in 36/38patients (94.7%) and CR-IM in 33/38 patients (86.8%) in the simplified group. The median follow up was 24 months for the standard protocol and 7 months for the simplified protocol.ConclusionThe efficacy of the simplified RFA protocol is comparable to the standard one. However, the simplified RFA protocol resulted in a higher stricture rate compared to the standard one, with higher risk for circumferential than focal treatment.Disclosure of InterestNone Declared

IntroductionColonoscopy offers the possibility of colorectal cancer prevention through the detection and removal of polyps. In the UK the Joint Advisory Group for endoscopy certifies endoscopists for independent practice once they are able to remove polyps of up to 20 mm in size. Where polyps are detected but not removed during the index colonoscopy, a repeat procedure is required. The aim of this study is to identify the proportion of polyps below the size of 20 mm which are not removed at the time of diagnosis.MethodA database review of all colonoscopies where at least one polyp was identified between 1 st January 2015 and 31 st December 2015 at Nottingham University Hospitals was performed. All polyps were categorised according to the reported size and the complexity as per the Size Morphology Site Access (SMSA) classification. Where polyps of 20 mm or below were not removed the patient‘s records and endoscopy reports were reviewed to establish the reasons for this and to determine the subsequent patient pathway.ResultsDuring the 12 month study period 8632 colonoscopies were performed. A total of 4598 polyps were identified in 2426 patients. Polyps of 20 mm or less were diagnosed in 2345 patients, with subsequent polypectomy in 2066 (88%). Of the procedures where a polypectomy was not performed, 71 patients were on anticoagulant or antiplatelet therapy and 22 had reported poor bowel preparation with corroborative photo-documentation. Polypectomy was not performed in 186 patients, representing 8.2% of patients with polyps below 20 mm and with no contraindications to intervention. The reasons cited for this approach included; inadequate time available (n=4), procedure felt to be beyond the endoscopist’s technical expertise (n=56) and no reason cited (n=126). The mean SMSA score of the non-removed polyps was 7.5 (level 2), denoting low to moderate complexity. As a result of the inappropriate non-removal of polyps 170 repeat endoscopies were required within the 12 month period.ConclusionThis study demonstrates that a significant proportion of small colorectal polyps are not removed at the time of diagnosis. This practice has implications to patients with the requirement of further bowel preparation, sedation and procedure associated risks, as well as to service costs.Disclosure of InterestNone Declared