Over the past century, numerous methods for assessing cell viability have been developed, and there are many different ways to categorize these methods accordingly. We have chosen to use the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) classification due to its regulatory importance. The OECD categorizes these methods into four groups: non-invasive cell structure damage, invasive cell structure damage, cell growth, and cellular metabolism. Despite the variety of cell viability methods available, they can all be categorized within these four groups, except for two novel methods based on the cell membrane potential, which we added to the list. Each method operates on different principles and has its own advantages and disadvantages, making it essential for researchers to choose the method that best fits their experimental design. This review aims to assist researchers in making this decision by describing these methods regarding their potential use and providing direct references to the cell viability assessment methods. Additionally, we use the OECD classification to facilitate potential regulatory use and to highlight the need for adding a new category to their list.

Clinical reasoning entails the application of knowledge and skills to collect and integrate information, typically with the goal of arriving at a diagnosis and management plan based on the patient’s unique circumstances and preferences. Evidence-informed, structured, and explicit teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning in educational programs of medical and other health professions remain unmet needs. We herein summarize recommendations for clinical reasoning learning objectives (LOs), as derived from a consensus approach among European and US researchers and health professions educators. A four-step consensus approach was followed: (1) identification of a convenience sample of the most relevant and applied national LO catalogues for health professions educational programs (N = 9) from European and US countries, (2) extraction of LOs related to clinical reasoning and translation into English, (3) mapping of LOs into predefined categories developed within the Erasmus+ Developing, implementing, and disseminating an adaptive clinical reasoning curriculum for healthcare students and educators (DID-ACT) consortium, and (4) synthesis of analysis findings into recommendations for how LOs related to clinical reasoning could be presented and incorporated in LO catalogues, upon consensus. Three distinct recommendations were formulated: (1) make clinical reasoning explicit, (2) emphasize interprofessional and collaboration aspects of clinical reasoning, and (3) include aspects of teaching and assessment of clinical reasoning. In addition, the consortium understood that implementation of bilingual catalogues with English as a common language might contribute to lower heterogeneity regarding amount, structure, and level of granularity of clinical reasoning LOs across countries. These recommendations will hopefully motivate and guide initiatives towards the implementation of LOs related to clinical reasoning in existing and future LO catalogues.