Reducing the incidence of assault-related deaths remains an ongoing interest for injury prevention practitioners.In Australia, and elsewhere, an area of particular attention has been quantifying the incidence of firearm homicide (and tracking potential method substitution) following legislative change. In Australia, the majority of epidemiological studies in this field rely on Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) data. However, it has recently been noted by the Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) that the ABS have been ‘undercounting’ firearm homicides since the year 2004. Specifically “…coding procedures used since 2004 (related to an increase in the number of open coroners cases) have resulted in an under-counting of firearm deaths due to assault (i.e. firearm homicide).

Most empirical studies of the effects of nuclear weapons only consider whether a state at a given time has nuclear arms or not, but there are strong reasons to think that the effects of a state’ s nuclear arsenal are conditioned by a range of other variables including how nuclear weapons are managed. I argue that the effect of nuclear weapons in non-existential disputes is determined by what I call nuclear risk: the overall likelihood that these weapons may be used without authorization by political leaders. Using a formal model, I hypothesize that higher nuclear risk leads to greater deterrent power, but it also makes the leaders of the nuclear state more cautious if their deterrence fails. I test these two hypotheses using the Correlates of War data. I first measure nuclear risk using a simple index, and then propose a novel Bayesian technique for imputing risk. Both hypotheses are borne out by empirical results.

Prostate cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among males in the United States.1 The treatment of prostate cancer has several options, including external beam radiation therapy. The primary goal of radiation therapy is to control the tumor by delivering a maximum dose to the tumor site, yet minimizing the radiation dose to normal tissues. The development of advanced delivery techniques such as intensity modulated radiation therapy (IMRT) and volumetric modulated arc therapy (VMAT) as well as more accurate treatment planning systems have improved tumor control in radiation therapy. Intensity modulated radiation therapy is a treatment technique that delivers the radiation beam in a static mode, whereas VMAT is considered to be a rotational IMRT that allows the beam to be delivered with the gantry of the machine rotating around the patient.2 Sophisticated treatment planning systems have also increased the accuracy of dose calculation and improved the work flow in the clinic. The results from different complex delivery techniques, however, may vary from one institution to another. The main purpose of this article is to provide a brief summary of the reasons that may have caused discrepancies among different treatment planning studies on prostate cancer.