OBJECTIVES:MR imaging of neonates is difficult for many reasons and a major factor is safe transport to the MR facilities. In this article we describe the use of a small, investigational 3-T MR customised for brain imaging and sited on a neonatal unit of a tertiary centre in the UK, which is in contrast to a 300-m journey to the whole-body MR scanner used at present for clinical cases.METHODS:We describe our methods for preparing babies for safe transport and scanning on an investigational 3-T MR scanner on a neonatal unit and the development of appropriate MR sequences. The MR scanner does not have CE marking at present so this early development work was undertaken on normal neonates whose parents consented to a research examination.RESULTS:Fifty-two babies were scanned and there were no serious adverse events. The MR examinations were considered to be diagnostically evaluable in all 52 cases and in 90% the imaging was considered to be at least as good as the quality obtained on the 1.5-T scanner currently used for clinical cases.CONCLUSION:We have shown that this investigational 3-T MR scanner can be used safely on a neonatal unit and we have refined the MR sequences to a point that they are clinically usable.KEY POINTS:• Access to neonatal MR imaging is limited. • We describe an investigational 3-T MR scanner site on a neonatal unit. • The scanner produces images suitable for clinical practice.

Several studies have assessed the link between psychosocial risk factors and stroke; however, the results were inconsistent. We have conducted a systemic review and meta analysis of cohort or case-control studies to ascertain the association between psycho social risk factors (psychological, vocational, behavioral, interpersonal, and neuropsychological) and the risk of stroke. Systematic searches were undertaken in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews between 2000 and January 2017. Two reviewers independently screened titles, abstracts, and full texts. One reviewer assessed quality and extracted data, which was checked by a second reviewer. For studies that reported risk estimates, a meta-analysis was performed. We identified 41 cohort studies and 5 case-control studies. No neuropsychological papers were found. Overall, pooled adjusted estimates showed that all other psychosocial risk factors were independent risk factors for stroke. Psychological factors increased the risk of stroke by 39% (hazard ratio [HR], 1.39; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.27-1.51), vocational by 35% (HR, 1.35; 95% CI, 1.20-1.51), and interpersonal by 16% (HR, 1.16; 95% CI, 1.03-1.31), and the effects of behavioral factors were equivocal (HR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.20-4.31). The meta-analyses were affected by heterogeneity. Psychosocial risk factors are associated with an increased risk of stroke.

Vulnerable populations have been defined as those who face a significant probability of incurring an identifiable harm while substantially lacking ability and/or means to protect themselves. Vulnerabilities within population groups can be differentiated by factors that determine the different probabilities of incurring identifiable harms (risks) people face and the means available to them to protect themselves (their protective capacity). Among these factors is gender.

The Maya International Cooperative Biodiversity Group (Maya ICBG) research project began in 1998 in the central highlands of Chiapas, Mexico, in a difficult and contentious legal, social and political climate. The researchers' good intentions were that the indigenous Maya people would both contribute to the project and benefit from it. However, gaps in the way local communities were included became a focus for international resistance to the project, which was abandoned in 2001.No single actor should bear the total responsibility for what happened to the Maya ICBG, but none is devoid of it. Through a comparison with the San-Hoodia case we discuss how parties on all sides implicitly understood 'collaboration' and 'benefit sharing', which can easily become controversial due to conflicting assumptions about how and to what extent different groups of people should benefit from the potential royalties, and who should make these decisions.Like the San peoples, the Maya stood to receive a very small proportion of any profit that might come from the development of commercial products. These benefits, whether realized or not, are never ethically neutral, so the transparent, full and free prior informed consent of communities to accept the risk of going along this path is absolutely essential. Both cases played out in a domestic legal and policy vacuum. Questions about the legitimacy of processes and decisions emerge as fundamental.The failure of the Maya ICBG was due largely to the lack of an appropriate prior informed consent process built on trust and adequate representation. The question of Maya identity and self-representation through forms that are 'credible' to outsidebioprospectors is an ongoing issue. The pan-Mayan identity currently under construction in Chiapas faces similar challenges to those of the San people.