The advent of experimental medicine in the early nineteenth century marked a crucial turning point in history of medicine. Historians unanimously recognize François Magendie (1783-1855), a physician and physiologist, as a pioneer of experimental medicine. Despite his significance, research on Magendie’s achievements and contributions remains limited. This scarcity stems from conflicting evaluations of Magendie's experimental medicine. On one hand, some claim that Magendie avoided hypotheses and simply accumulated individual facts. On the other hand, others argue that he implicitly used hypotheses. These differing views traces back to his disciple Claude Bernard (1813-1878), who believed it was impossible to conduct experiments without hypotheses. If Magendie was a pioneer of experimental medicine, then he must have had hypotheses as well. However, interpretations of his viewpoint on hypotheses vary. This paper aims to clarify this issue. By examining contemporary evaluations of physiology during Magendie’s time, the concept of collaborative research with chemist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794), and the laboratory environments where these ideas were realized, this study finds new insights into Magendie’s approaches to experimental medicine. Magendie was extremely cautious in formulating his own hypotheses, but he often designed experiments based on the hypotheses of other physiologists. His criticism of Bichat exemplifies this tendency. The conclusions derived from this study are as follows: first, there is a need to reconsider the current historical understanding of Magendie's experimental medicine; second, the history of early nineteenth century medicine, particularly in the context of large-scale collaborative research, requires a different analytical approach than that applied to earlier periods.

The advent of experimental medicine in the early nineteenth century marked a crucial turning point in history of medicine. Historians unanimously recognize François Magendie (1783-1855), a physician and physiologist, as a pioneer of experimental medicine. Despite his significance, research on Magendie’s achievements and contributions remains limited. This scarcity stems from conflicting evaluations of Magendie's experimental medicine. On one hand, some claim that Magendie avoided hypotheses and simply accumulated individual facts. On the other hand, others argue that he implicitly used hypotheses. These differing views traces back to his disciple Claude Bernard (1813-1878), who believed it was impossible to conduct experiments without hypotheses. If Magendie was a pioneer of experimental medicine, then he must have had hypotheses as well. However, interpretations of his viewpoint on hypotheses vary. This paper aims to clarify this issue. By examining contemporary evaluations of physiology during Magendie’s time, the concept of collaborative research with chemist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794), and the laboratory environments where these ideas were realized, this study finds new insights into Magendie’s approaches to experimental medicine. Magendie was extremely cautious in formulating his own hypotheses, but he often designed experiments based on the hypotheses of other physiologists. His criticism of Bichat exemplifies this tendency. The conclusions derived from this study are as follows: first, there is a need to reconsider the current historical understanding of Magendie's experimental medicine; second, the history of early nineteenth century medicine, particularly in the context of large-scale collaborative research, requires a different analytical approach than that applied to earlier periods.

The advent of experimental medicine in the early nineteenth century marked a crucial turning point in history of medicine. Historians unanimously recognize François Magendie (1783-1855), a physician and physiologist, as a pioneer of experimental medicine. Despite his significance, research on Magendie’s achievements and contributions remains limited. This scarcity stems from conflicting evaluations of Magendie's experimental medicine. On one hand, some claim that Magendie avoided hypotheses and simply accumulated individual facts. On the other hand, others argue that he implicitly used hypotheses. These differing views traces back to his disciple Claude Bernard (1813-1878), who believed it was impossible to conduct experiments without hypotheses. If Magendie was a pioneer of experimental medicine, then he must have had hypotheses as well. However, interpretations of his viewpoint on hypotheses vary. This paper aims to clarify this issue. By examining contemporary evaluations of physiology during Magendie’s time, the concept of collaborative research with chemist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794), and the laboratory environments where these ideas were realized, this study finds new insights into Magendie’s approaches to experimental medicine. Magendie was extremely cautious in formulating his own hypotheses, but he often designed experiments based on the hypotheses of other physiologists. His criticism of Bichat exemplifies this tendency. The conclusions derived from this study are as follows: first, there is a need to reconsider the current historical understanding of Magendie's experimental medicine; second, the history of early nineteenth century medicine, particularly in the context of large-scale collaborative research, requires a different analytical approach than that applied to earlier periods.

The advent of experimental medicine in the early nineteenth century marked a crucial turning point in history of medicine. Historians unanimously recognize François Magendie (1783-1855), a physician and physiologist, as a pioneer of experimental medicine. Despite his significance, research on Magendie’s achievements and contributions remains limited. This scarcity stems from conflicting evaluations of Magendie's experimental medicine. On one hand, some claim that Magendie avoided hypotheses and simply accumulated individual facts. On the other hand, others argue that he implicitly used hypotheses. These differing views traces back to his disciple Claude Bernard (1813-1878), who believed it was impossible to conduct experiments without hypotheses. If Magendie was a pioneer of experimental medicine, then he must have had hypotheses as well. However, interpretations of his viewpoint on hypotheses vary. This paper aims to clarify this issue. By examining contemporary evaluations of physiology during Magendie’s time, the concept of collaborative research with chemist Antoine-Laurent Lavoisier (1743-1794), and the laboratory environments where these ideas were realized, this study finds new insights into Magendie’s approaches to experimental medicine. Magendie was extremely cautious in formulating his own hypotheses, but he often designed experiments based on the hypotheses of other physiologists. His criticism of Bichat exemplifies this tendency. The conclusions derived from this study are as follows: first, there is a need to reconsider the current historical understanding of Magendie's experimental medicine; second, the history of early nineteenth century medicine, particularly in the context of large-scale collaborative research, requires a different analytical approach than that applied to earlier periods.

Purpose: This study aimed to investigate burnout and resilience among emergency physicians (EPs) at university teaching hospitals during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. Materials and Methods: In April to May 2021, a survey was administered to 331 and 309 emergency medicine specialists and residents, respectively, from 31 university teaching hospitals in Korea. Data on the respondents’ age, sex, designation, working area, experience with treating COVID-19 patients, and personal experience with COVID-19 were collected. Based on the participants’ characteristics, quality of life (compassion satisfaction, burnout, and secondary traumatic stress), resilience, emotional content, and self-image were analyzed. Results: A total of 247 responses were analyzed. Compared to specialists, compassion satisfaction and resilience in residents were not good, burnout was severe, and emotional content and self-image were less positive. Experiences with treating COVID-19 patients did not cause any difference in quality of life, resilience, emotional content, and self-image among participant subgroups. Personal COVID-19 experiences were associated with poor compassion satisfaction, resilience, less positive emotional content and self-image, and severe burnout. Compassion satisfaction, secondary traumatic stress, and resilience can definitively affect burnout. Conclusion The quality of life and resilience of EPs in university teaching hospitals in Korea during the COVID-19 pandemic have been low. Supportive measures to improve resilience can prevent burnout among emergency staff, particularly residents and EPs, with personal experiences related to COVID-19.

Objective: The purpose of this study was to analyze the current situation concerning professionalism among emergency physicians in South Korea by conducting a survey regarding their perceptions and experiences of unprofessional behavior. Methods: In October 2018, the authors evaluated the responses to a questionnaire administered to 548 emergency physicians at 28 university hospitals. The participants described their perceptions and experiences concerning 45 unprofessional behaviors classified into the following five categories: patient care, communication with colleagues, professionalism at work, research, and violent behavior and abusive language. Furthermore, the responses were analyzed by position (resident vs. faculty). Descriptive statistics were generated on the general characteristics of the study participants. To compare differences in responses by position and sex, the chi-square and Fisher exact tests were performed. Results: Of the 548 individuals invited to participate in this study, 253 responded (response rate, 46.2%). In 34 out of 45 questionnaires, more than half of participants reported having experienced unprofessional behavior despite their negative perceptions. Eleven perception questions and 38 experience questions for unprofessional behavior showed differences by position. Conclusion Most emergency physicians were well aware of what constituted unprofessional behavior; nevertheless, many had engaged in or observed such behavior.

OBJECTIVES: To circumvent the limitations of the current golden standard method, colony-forming unit (CFU) assay, for viability of Bacille Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccines, we developed a new method to rapidly and accurately determine the potency of BCG vaccines. METHODS: Based on flow cytometry (FACS) and fluorescein diacetate (FDA) as the most appropriate fluorescent staining reagent, 17 lots of BCG vaccines for percutaneous administration and 5 lots of BCG vaccines for intradermal administration were analyzed in this study. The percentage of viable cells measured by flow cytometry along with the total number of organisms in BCG vaccines, as determined on a cell counter, was used to quantify the number of viable cells. RESULTS: Pearson correlation coefficients of FACS and CFU assays for percutaneous and intradermal BCG vaccines were 0.6962 and 0.7428, respectively, indicating a high correlation. The coefficient of variation value of the FACS assay was less than 7%, which was 11 times lower than that of the CFU assay. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to the evaluation of new potency test method for FACS-based determination of viable cells in BCG vaccines. Accordingly, quality control of BCG vaccines can be significantly improved.
Administration, Cutaneous ; BCG Vaccine ; Cell Count ; Flow Cytometry* ; Fluorescein ; Methods ; Mycobacterium bovis ; Quality Control ; Stem Cells ; Vaccine Potency ; Vaccines*

No abstract available.
Adult* ; Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation* ; Humans