Biomedical subjects

R S Kinder

Publications and source records attributed to R S Kinder.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1987

Presence of retinal autoantigen in normal mice: absence in strains with retinal degeneration.

We examined the eyes of four strains of mice to determine if some or all contained an antigen which might cross-react with an antigen of guinea pig retina. To do this, we prepared guinea-pig antibody to guinea-pig retinal extract by immunizing Hartley guinea pigs with guinea-pig retinal extract in two different adjuvants. The retinal tissue of Balb/c and C57B1/6J mice stained well when we used the guinea-pig antibody to guinea-pig retinal extract. In contrast, the eyes of a subline, i.e., C57B1/6J-rd with retinal degeneration, did not stain. Likewise, the eyes of C3H/HeJ and SJL mice with abnormal retinas did not stain. The latter two strains are known to have retinal degeneration. The control studies were negative. This study shows that normal murine eyes have at least one antigen which cross-reacts with a guinea-pig retinal antigen. It also shows abnormal mouse retinas lack this antigen.

Animals↗

PubMed1982

Monitoring ophthalmology graduate education. The Residency Review Committee.

Formal monitoring of quality control in American graduate medical education is the task of the residency review committees (RRCs). The RRC for ophthalmology consists of nine members appointed by the American Board of Ophthalmology, the American Academy of Ophthalmology, and the American Medical Association. The RRC meets twice each year to determine the accreditation status of residency training programs. As of 1978, the residents ae board eligible only if they have graduated from accredited programs. The review process is based on data collected in standard hospital information forms and a site survey. An RRC member evaluates this information and makes a recommendation that is discussed and voted on by the nine-member RRC body. In response to pressures for greater quality control and regulatory visibility, the review process has been bolstered by improvements in the data-gathering forms and in the surveyors and by a revision of the minimum requirements for accreditation that provides clearer and more stringent guidelines.

Accreditation↗

PubMed1976