Hi everyone! I was watching this video myself and thought I could've worded 2 things better: Improved wording for Case 10 @ 12:30 "If the blood vessels in the central lung look like they’re converging towards the ENLARGED HILUM , we think it’s more likely the ENLARGED HILUM is just a big pulmonary artery. If the blood vessels are converting on something OTHERN THAN THE ENLARGED HILUM, like the heart, then we’re thinking of something more ominous, like a hilar mass instead of an enlarged pulmonary artery." Improved wording for Case 11 @ 13:33 "The differential diagnosis for crazing paving represents the INTERSECTION of the differential diagnosis of septal interstitial pattern and ground-glass opacities." If you notice something else that doesn't sound quite right or is worded in a confusing way, please let me know. Thanks!!
Someone should send this to all the provincial radiologists….doing so will save lives; equally, GP’s and others should be attempting to have a look at this because in the modern world it’s just not acceptable any more for them to have no frame of reference with radiology - we all need a good level of the basics. Just as competition lawyers need to learn economics (wasn’t always like this) so too should non radiologists learn some radiology - the world has moved on and people need to get with the program….alternatively they should make way for others to come through. Peoples lives are at stake here…..
