Diversity and inclusion are vital elements to the success of any group. Indeed, evidence from the business world indicates that a group's overall talent level is a function of its collective cognitive diversity. The ability to effectively problem solve, innovate, and adapt to change all depend to a large degree on the biases and life experiences of an organization's constituent members. As other industries have come to embrace this principle, their recruitment strategies have included placing a premium on employees who can think differently from one another. The benefits of diversity and inclusion have been touted in the medical literature and on social media sites in recent years. The radiology Twitter community often discusses the nuances of diversity and how it benefits all stakeholders in a radiology department. In essence, a diverse group allows for collaboration among colleagues with dissimilar experiences and perspectives, increasing the odds for discovery of new concepts and innovation (Fig 1) (1). Patients may stand to benefit the most, as diversity among practicing physicians is believed to be a key component of improving access and reducing disparities to health care in the United States (2,3).

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Several major medical specialties have recently considered delaying the start date of their fellowship training programs to allow for completion of their trainees' residency obligations. Radiology program directors (PDs) have voiced the need for a similar solution, as fellowship start dates at some institutions now occur well before the end of residency training. The objectives of this study are to assess the current state of the radiology fellowship transition and understand its impact on residency programs and clinical services. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Survey Monkey (Palo Alto, CA) was used to create a survey consisting of 9 multiple choice and 2 free text questions. The survey was approved by the survey committee of the Association of Program Directors in Radiology (APDR) and distributed via email to all 240 APDR members in November 2018. The survey was closed after 30 days. RESULTS: The response rate was 67% (160/240). Fifty-nine percent of respondents indicated some of their residents are asked to arrive at fellowships before July 1, often several days early for orientation and picture archiving and communication system (PACS) training. Sixteen percent of respondents said their own institutions ask incoming fellows to arrive early. Sixty-four percent of respondents indicated that this causes staffing problems. Seventy-eight percent of respondents supported considering a delay to the start of radiology fellowships. CONCLUSION: Most APDR members claim that residents are asked to arrive at fellowships early to complete orientation and training before July 1, and most say that this produces staffing problems on services. A significant majority of respondents support a discussion regarding delaying fellowship start dates.

Preclinical ischemic stroke is at the crossroads in search of reliable and robust simulation models as past experiences with their translation from the laboratory to the standard of clinical care have often been disappointing. The efficacy of neuroprotective agents is still elusive, and the use of thrombolytics alone is limited to the narrow time window of presentation from the onset of the deficit. Hence, the focus has shifted to interventional revascularization to salvage the parenchyma at the risk of infarction. As the burden of disease morbidity and mortality is so enormous, neurointerventionalists have adopted a more aggressive approach to mechanical revascularization with the limited approved tools available-the Penumbra and the MERCI retrieval system, and the recently incorporated stent retrievers. In fact, the interventional space is among the fastest growing fields in stroke research today. Assessing treatment efficacy in these scenarios is infinitely complex as the heterogeneity of the cerebrovasculature, physical and mechanical nature of the occlusive embolus and the time of presentation are all confounders in assessing treatment outcomes. As no single thromboembolic model is apt to address all of these questions, an integrated methodology with a combination of both in vitro and in vivo assessment needs to be adopted. This involves clinically relevant thromboembolic analogs in device evaluation in vascular replicas, thromboembolic stroke induction in large animal gyrencephalic ischemic stroke models for thrombolytic, imaging and neuroprotection research and a native cerebrovascular target for evaluation of the safety and efficacy of mechanical thrombectomy devices.