Evidence of such deficits may contribute to our understanding of the interpersonal difficulties in cannabis-users, and the link between cannabis-use and psychological disorders (Moore et al., 2007).

Method: Emotion recognition performance of heavy cannabis-users and non-using controls was compared. A measure of emotion recognition was used in which participants identified facial expressions as they changed from neutral (open-mouth) to gradually more intense expressions of sadness, neutral, anger or happiness (open or closed mouth). Reaction times and accuracy were recorded as the facial expressions changed. Participants also completed measures of ‘theory

of mind,’ depression and impulsivity.

Results: Cannabis-users were significantly slower than Screening Library controls YH25448 inhibitor at identifying all three emotional expressions. There was no difference between groups in identifying facial expressions changing from open-mouth neutral expressions to closed-mouth neutral expressions suggesting that differences in emotion recognition were not due

to a general slowing of reaction times. Cannabis-users were also significantly more liberal in their response criterion for recognising sadness.

Conclusion: Heavy cannabis-use may be associated with affect recognition deficits. In particular, a greater intensity of emotion expression was required before identification of positive and negative emotions. This was found using stimuli which simulated dynamic changes in emotion expression, and in turn, suggests that cannabis-users may experience generalised problems in decoding basic emotions during social interactions. The implications of these findings are discussed for vulnerability to psychological and interpersonal difficulties in cannabis-users. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. AlL rights reserved.”
“Most advice currently available with regard to fluoroscopic skin reactions is based on a table published in 1994. Many caveats in that report were not included in later reproductions, and subsequent research has

yielded additional insights. This review is a consensus report of current scientific data. Expected skin find more reactions for an average patient are presented in tabular form as a function of peak skin dose and time after irradiation. The text and table indicate the variability of reactions in different patients. Images of injuries to skin and underlying tissues in patients and animals are provided and are categorized according to the National Cancer Institute skin toxicity scale, offering a basis for describing cutaneous radiation reactions in interventional fluoroscopy and quantifying their clinical severity. For a single procedure performed in most individuals, noticeable skin changes are observed approximately 1 month after a peak skin dose exceeding several grays.