User login
For MD-IQ use only
Psychiatric illnesses share common brain network
Investigators used coordinate and lesion network mapping to assess whether there was a shared brain network common to multiple psychiatric disorders. In a meta-analysis of almost 200 studies encompassing more than 15,000 individuals, they found that atrophy coordinates across these six psychiatric conditions all mapped to a common brain network.
Moreover, lesion damage to this network in patients with penetrating head trauma correlated with the number of psychiatric illnesses that the patients were diagnosed with post trauma.
The findings have “bigger-picture potential implications,” lead author Joseph Taylor, MD, PhD, medical director of transcranial magnetic stimulation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics, Boston, told this news organization.
“In psychiatry, we talk about symptoms and define our disorders based on symptom checklists, which are fairly reliable but don’t have neurobiological underpinnings,” said Dr. Taylor, who is also an associate psychiatrist in Brigham’s department of psychiatry.
By contrast, “in neurology, we ask: ‘Where is the lesion?’ Studying brain networks could potentially help us diagnose and treat people with psychiatric illness more effectively, just as we treat neurological disorders,” he added.
The findings were published online in Nature Human Behavior.
Beyond symptom checklists
Dr. Taylor noted that, in the field of psychiatry, “we often study disorders in isolation,” such as generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.
“But what see clinically is that half of patients meet the criteria for more than one psychiatric disorder,” he said. “It can be difficult to diagnose and treat these patients, and there are worse treatment outcomes.”
There is also a “discrepancy” between how these disorders are studied (one at a time) and how patients are treated in clinic, Dr. Taylor noted. And there is increasing evidence that psychiatric disorders may share a common neurobiology.
This “highlights the possibility of potentially developing transdiagnostic treatments based on common neurobiology, not just symptom checklists,” Dr. Taylor said.
Prior work “has attempted to map abnormalities to common brain regions rather than to a common brain network,” the investigators wrote. Moreover, “prior studies have rarely tested specificity by comparing psychiatric disorders to other brain disorders.”
In the current study, the researchers used “morphometric brain lesion datasets coupled with a wiring diagram of the human brain to derive a convergent brain network for psychiatric illness.”
They analyzed four large published datasets. Dataset 1 was sourced from an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis (ALE) of whole-brain voxel-based studies that compared patients with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, BD, depression, addiction, OCD, and anxiety to healthy controls (n = 193 studies; 15,892 individuals in total).
Dataset 2 was drawn from published neuroimaging studies involving patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative conditions (n = 72 studies). They reported coordinates regarding which patients with these disorders had more atrophy compared with control persons.
Dataset 3 was sourced from the Vietnam Head Injury study, which followed veterans with and those without penetrating head injuries (n = 194 veterans with injuries). Dataset 4 was sourced from published neurosurgical ablation coordinates for depression.
Shared neurobiology
Upon analyzing dataset 1, the researchers found decreased gray matter in the bilateral anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, and parietal operculum – findings that are “consistent with prior work.”
However, fewer than 35% of the studies contributed to any single cluster; and no cluster was specific to psychiatric versus neurodegenerative coordinates (drawn from dataset 2).
On the other hand, coordinate network mapping yielded “more statistically robust” (P < .001) results, which were found in 85% of the studies. “Psychiatric atrophy coordinates were functionally connected to the same network of brain regions,” the researchers reported.
This network was defined by two types of connectivity, positive and negative.
“The topography of this transdiagnostic network was independent of the statistical threshold and specific to psychiatric (vs. neurodegenerative) disorders, with the strongest peak occurring in the posterior parietal cortex (Brodmann Area 7) near the intraparietal sulcus,” the investigators wrote.
When lesions from dataset 3 were overlaid onto the ALE map and the transdiagnostic network in order to evaluate whether damage to either map correlated with number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnosis, results showed no evidence of a correlation between psychiatric comorbidity and damage on the ALE map (Pearson r, 0.02; P = .766).
However, when the same approach was applied to the transdiagnostic network, a statistically significant correlation was found between psychiatric comorbidity and lesion damage (Pearson r, –0.21; P = .01). A multiple regression model showed that the transdiagnostic, but not the ALE, network “independently predicted the number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnoses” (P = .003 vs. P = .1), the investigators reported.
All four neurosurgical ablative targets for psychiatric disorders found on analysis of dataset 4 “intersected” and aligned with the transdiagnostic network.
“The study does not immediately impact clinical practice, but it would be helpful for practicing clinicians to know that psychiatric disorders commonly co-occur and might share common neurobiology and a convergent brain network,” Dr. Taylor said.
“Future work based on our findings could potentially influence clinical trials and clinical practice, especially in the area of brain stimulation,” he added.
‘Exciting new targets’
In a comment, Desmond Oathes, PhD, associate director, Center for Neuromodulation and Stress, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the “next step in the science is to combine individual brain imaging, aka, ‘individualized connectomes,’ with these promising group maps to determine something meaningful at the individual patient level.”
Dr. Oathes, who is also a faculty clinician at the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety and was not involved with the study, noted that an open question is whether the brain volume abnormalities/atrophy “can be changed with treatment and in what direction.”
A “strong take-home message from this paper is that brain volume measures from single coordinates are noisy as measures of psychiatric abnormality, whereas network effects seem to be especially sensitive for capturing these effects,” Dr. Oathes said.
The “abnormal networks across these disorders do not fit easily into well-known networks from healthy participants. However, they map well onto other databases relevant to psychiatric disorders and offer exciting new potential targets for prospective treatment studies,” he added.
The investigators received no specific funding for this work. Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oathes reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators used coordinate and lesion network mapping to assess whether there was a shared brain network common to multiple psychiatric disorders. In a meta-analysis of almost 200 studies encompassing more than 15,000 individuals, they found that atrophy coordinates across these six psychiatric conditions all mapped to a common brain network.
Moreover, lesion damage to this network in patients with penetrating head trauma correlated with the number of psychiatric illnesses that the patients were diagnosed with post trauma.
The findings have “bigger-picture potential implications,” lead author Joseph Taylor, MD, PhD, medical director of transcranial magnetic stimulation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics, Boston, told this news organization.
“In psychiatry, we talk about symptoms and define our disorders based on symptom checklists, which are fairly reliable but don’t have neurobiological underpinnings,” said Dr. Taylor, who is also an associate psychiatrist in Brigham’s department of psychiatry.
By contrast, “in neurology, we ask: ‘Where is the lesion?’ Studying brain networks could potentially help us diagnose and treat people with psychiatric illness more effectively, just as we treat neurological disorders,” he added.
The findings were published online in Nature Human Behavior.
Beyond symptom checklists
Dr. Taylor noted that, in the field of psychiatry, “we often study disorders in isolation,” such as generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.
“But what see clinically is that half of patients meet the criteria for more than one psychiatric disorder,” he said. “It can be difficult to diagnose and treat these patients, and there are worse treatment outcomes.”
There is also a “discrepancy” between how these disorders are studied (one at a time) and how patients are treated in clinic, Dr. Taylor noted. And there is increasing evidence that psychiatric disorders may share a common neurobiology.
This “highlights the possibility of potentially developing transdiagnostic treatments based on common neurobiology, not just symptom checklists,” Dr. Taylor said.
Prior work “has attempted to map abnormalities to common brain regions rather than to a common brain network,” the investigators wrote. Moreover, “prior studies have rarely tested specificity by comparing psychiatric disorders to other brain disorders.”
In the current study, the researchers used “morphometric brain lesion datasets coupled with a wiring diagram of the human brain to derive a convergent brain network for psychiatric illness.”
They analyzed four large published datasets. Dataset 1 was sourced from an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis (ALE) of whole-brain voxel-based studies that compared patients with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, BD, depression, addiction, OCD, and anxiety to healthy controls (n = 193 studies; 15,892 individuals in total).
Dataset 2 was drawn from published neuroimaging studies involving patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative conditions (n = 72 studies). They reported coordinates regarding which patients with these disorders had more atrophy compared with control persons.
Dataset 3 was sourced from the Vietnam Head Injury study, which followed veterans with and those without penetrating head injuries (n = 194 veterans with injuries). Dataset 4 was sourced from published neurosurgical ablation coordinates for depression.
Shared neurobiology
Upon analyzing dataset 1, the researchers found decreased gray matter in the bilateral anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, and parietal operculum – findings that are “consistent with prior work.”
However, fewer than 35% of the studies contributed to any single cluster; and no cluster was specific to psychiatric versus neurodegenerative coordinates (drawn from dataset 2).
On the other hand, coordinate network mapping yielded “more statistically robust” (P < .001) results, which were found in 85% of the studies. “Psychiatric atrophy coordinates were functionally connected to the same network of brain regions,” the researchers reported.
This network was defined by two types of connectivity, positive and negative.
“The topography of this transdiagnostic network was independent of the statistical threshold and specific to psychiatric (vs. neurodegenerative) disorders, with the strongest peak occurring in the posterior parietal cortex (Brodmann Area 7) near the intraparietal sulcus,” the investigators wrote.
When lesions from dataset 3 were overlaid onto the ALE map and the transdiagnostic network in order to evaluate whether damage to either map correlated with number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnosis, results showed no evidence of a correlation between psychiatric comorbidity and damage on the ALE map (Pearson r, 0.02; P = .766).
However, when the same approach was applied to the transdiagnostic network, a statistically significant correlation was found between psychiatric comorbidity and lesion damage (Pearson r, –0.21; P = .01). A multiple regression model showed that the transdiagnostic, but not the ALE, network “independently predicted the number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnoses” (P = .003 vs. P = .1), the investigators reported.
All four neurosurgical ablative targets for psychiatric disorders found on analysis of dataset 4 “intersected” and aligned with the transdiagnostic network.
“The study does not immediately impact clinical practice, but it would be helpful for practicing clinicians to know that psychiatric disorders commonly co-occur and might share common neurobiology and a convergent brain network,” Dr. Taylor said.
“Future work based on our findings could potentially influence clinical trials and clinical practice, especially in the area of brain stimulation,” he added.
‘Exciting new targets’
In a comment, Desmond Oathes, PhD, associate director, Center for Neuromodulation and Stress, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the “next step in the science is to combine individual brain imaging, aka, ‘individualized connectomes,’ with these promising group maps to determine something meaningful at the individual patient level.”
Dr. Oathes, who is also a faculty clinician at the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety and was not involved with the study, noted that an open question is whether the brain volume abnormalities/atrophy “can be changed with treatment and in what direction.”
A “strong take-home message from this paper is that brain volume measures from single coordinates are noisy as measures of psychiatric abnormality, whereas network effects seem to be especially sensitive for capturing these effects,” Dr. Oathes said.
The “abnormal networks across these disorders do not fit easily into well-known networks from healthy participants. However, they map well onto other databases relevant to psychiatric disorders and offer exciting new potential targets for prospective treatment studies,” he added.
The investigators received no specific funding for this work. Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oathes reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators used coordinate and lesion network mapping to assess whether there was a shared brain network common to multiple psychiatric disorders. In a meta-analysis of almost 200 studies encompassing more than 15,000 individuals, they found that atrophy coordinates across these six psychiatric conditions all mapped to a common brain network.
Moreover, lesion damage to this network in patients with penetrating head trauma correlated with the number of psychiatric illnesses that the patients were diagnosed with post trauma.
The findings have “bigger-picture potential implications,” lead author Joseph Taylor, MD, PhD, medical director of transcranial magnetic stimulation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics, Boston, told this news organization.
“In psychiatry, we talk about symptoms and define our disorders based on symptom checklists, which are fairly reliable but don’t have neurobiological underpinnings,” said Dr. Taylor, who is also an associate psychiatrist in Brigham’s department of psychiatry.
By contrast, “in neurology, we ask: ‘Where is the lesion?’ Studying brain networks could potentially help us diagnose and treat people with psychiatric illness more effectively, just as we treat neurological disorders,” he added.
The findings were published online in Nature Human Behavior.
Beyond symptom checklists
Dr. Taylor noted that, in the field of psychiatry, “we often study disorders in isolation,” such as generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.
“But what see clinically is that half of patients meet the criteria for more than one psychiatric disorder,” he said. “It can be difficult to diagnose and treat these patients, and there are worse treatment outcomes.”
There is also a “discrepancy” between how these disorders are studied (one at a time) and how patients are treated in clinic, Dr. Taylor noted. And there is increasing evidence that psychiatric disorders may share a common neurobiology.
This “highlights the possibility of potentially developing transdiagnostic treatments based on common neurobiology, not just symptom checklists,” Dr. Taylor said.
Prior work “has attempted to map abnormalities to common brain regions rather than to a common brain network,” the investigators wrote. Moreover, “prior studies have rarely tested specificity by comparing psychiatric disorders to other brain disorders.”
In the current study, the researchers used “morphometric brain lesion datasets coupled with a wiring diagram of the human brain to derive a convergent brain network for psychiatric illness.”
They analyzed four large published datasets. Dataset 1 was sourced from an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis (ALE) of whole-brain voxel-based studies that compared patients with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, BD, depression, addiction, OCD, and anxiety to healthy controls (n = 193 studies; 15,892 individuals in total).
Dataset 2 was drawn from published neuroimaging studies involving patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative conditions (n = 72 studies). They reported coordinates regarding which patients with these disorders had more atrophy compared with control persons.
Dataset 3 was sourced from the Vietnam Head Injury study, which followed veterans with and those without penetrating head injuries (n = 194 veterans with injuries). Dataset 4 was sourced from published neurosurgical ablation coordinates for depression.
Shared neurobiology
Upon analyzing dataset 1, the researchers found decreased gray matter in the bilateral anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, and parietal operculum – findings that are “consistent with prior work.”
However, fewer than 35% of the studies contributed to any single cluster; and no cluster was specific to psychiatric versus neurodegenerative coordinates (drawn from dataset 2).
On the other hand, coordinate network mapping yielded “more statistically robust” (P < .001) results, which were found in 85% of the studies. “Psychiatric atrophy coordinates were functionally connected to the same network of brain regions,” the researchers reported.
This network was defined by two types of connectivity, positive and negative.
“The topography of this transdiagnostic network was independent of the statistical threshold and specific to psychiatric (vs. neurodegenerative) disorders, with the strongest peak occurring in the posterior parietal cortex (Brodmann Area 7) near the intraparietal sulcus,” the investigators wrote.
When lesions from dataset 3 were overlaid onto the ALE map and the transdiagnostic network in order to evaluate whether damage to either map correlated with number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnosis, results showed no evidence of a correlation between psychiatric comorbidity and damage on the ALE map (Pearson r, 0.02; P = .766).
However, when the same approach was applied to the transdiagnostic network, a statistically significant correlation was found between psychiatric comorbidity and lesion damage (Pearson r, –0.21; P = .01). A multiple regression model showed that the transdiagnostic, but not the ALE, network “independently predicted the number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnoses” (P = .003 vs. P = .1), the investigators reported.
All four neurosurgical ablative targets for psychiatric disorders found on analysis of dataset 4 “intersected” and aligned with the transdiagnostic network.
“The study does not immediately impact clinical practice, but it would be helpful for practicing clinicians to know that psychiatric disorders commonly co-occur and might share common neurobiology and a convergent brain network,” Dr. Taylor said.
“Future work based on our findings could potentially influence clinical trials and clinical practice, especially in the area of brain stimulation,” he added.
‘Exciting new targets’
In a comment, Desmond Oathes, PhD, associate director, Center for Neuromodulation and Stress, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the “next step in the science is to combine individual brain imaging, aka, ‘individualized connectomes,’ with these promising group maps to determine something meaningful at the individual patient level.”
Dr. Oathes, who is also a faculty clinician at the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety and was not involved with the study, noted that an open question is whether the brain volume abnormalities/atrophy “can be changed with treatment and in what direction.”
A “strong take-home message from this paper is that brain volume measures from single coordinates are noisy as measures of psychiatric abnormality, whereas network effects seem to be especially sensitive for capturing these effects,” Dr. Oathes said.
The “abnormal networks across these disorders do not fit easily into well-known networks from healthy participants. However, they map well onto other databases relevant to psychiatric disorders and offer exciting new potential targets for prospective treatment studies,” he added.
The investigators received no specific funding for this work. Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oathes reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM NATURE HUMAN BEHAVIOR
The future of GI
Dear friends,
Since the last issue of The New Gastroenterologist, the GI Fellowship Match has occurred and CONGRATULATIONS to the Class of 2026! You’ve all been on an arduous journey to get here, and it’s really time to slow down and soak up as much as you can. For those who did not match, do not give up, because you are still the future of GI!
This issue of TNG is particularly special to me, because it marks my first official selection of articles as I embark on my own TNG journey, and the theme is the future of GI. In the “In Focus” article this quarter, Dr. Eugenia N. Uche-Anya and Dr. Tyler M. Berzin review the vast and emerging advances of artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopy, its role in augmenting patient care, obstacles in incorporating AI into current practice, and the future of AI in gastroenterology and hepatology. One important aspect of developing our future in these technologies includes getting involved with industry. Dr. Raman Muthusamy gives practical tips on developing and navigating relationships with industry, with highlights on understanding intellectual property and conflicts of interest.
Continuing our trek into the future of GI, telemedicine came into the fold with the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is clearly here to stay. Dr. Russ R. Arjal repositions telemedicine as a way to increase access to care and optimize practice revenue, with the aim of improving patient outcomes in the future.
Last, to ground this issue clinically, Dr. Jason Kwon and Dr. Paul T. Kroner review the gastrointestinal, hepatic, and pancreaticobiliary adverse manifestations and management of immune checkpoint inhibitors, especially now that immunotherapies have revolutionized the treatment of cancer. As gastroenterologists, we are and will be seeing more and more of these adverse events.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]). You may also contact Jillian Schweitzer ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact: Philipp Bozzini is credited with having developed the first endoscope in 1805, called the Lichtleiter (German for “light conductor”), using a candle as its light source. Adolf Kussmaul, however, developed the first rigid gastroscope in 1868, recruiting a sword-swallower in his first demonstration.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Advanced Endoscopy Fellow
Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Dear friends,
Since the last issue of The New Gastroenterologist, the GI Fellowship Match has occurred and CONGRATULATIONS to the Class of 2026! You’ve all been on an arduous journey to get here, and it’s really time to slow down and soak up as much as you can. For those who did not match, do not give up, because you are still the future of GI!
This issue of TNG is particularly special to me, because it marks my first official selection of articles as I embark on my own TNG journey, and the theme is the future of GI. In the “In Focus” article this quarter, Dr. Eugenia N. Uche-Anya and Dr. Tyler M. Berzin review the vast and emerging advances of artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopy, its role in augmenting patient care, obstacles in incorporating AI into current practice, and the future of AI in gastroenterology and hepatology. One important aspect of developing our future in these technologies includes getting involved with industry. Dr. Raman Muthusamy gives practical tips on developing and navigating relationships with industry, with highlights on understanding intellectual property and conflicts of interest.
Continuing our trek into the future of GI, telemedicine came into the fold with the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is clearly here to stay. Dr. Russ R. Arjal repositions telemedicine as a way to increase access to care and optimize practice revenue, with the aim of improving patient outcomes in the future.
Last, to ground this issue clinically, Dr. Jason Kwon and Dr. Paul T. Kroner review the gastrointestinal, hepatic, and pancreaticobiliary adverse manifestations and management of immune checkpoint inhibitors, especially now that immunotherapies have revolutionized the treatment of cancer. As gastroenterologists, we are and will be seeing more and more of these adverse events.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]). You may also contact Jillian Schweitzer ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact: Philipp Bozzini is credited with having developed the first endoscope in 1805, called the Lichtleiter (German for “light conductor”), using a candle as its light source. Adolf Kussmaul, however, developed the first rigid gastroscope in 1868, recruiting a sword-swallower in his first demonstration.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Advanced Endoscopy Fellow
Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Dear friends,
Since the last issue of The New Gastroenterologist, the GI Fellowship Match has occurred and CONGRATULATIONS to the Class of 2026! You’ve all been on an arduous journey to get here, and it’s really time to slow down and soak up as much as you can. For those who did not match, do not give up, because you are still the future of GI!
This issue of TNG is particularly special to me, because it marks my first official selection of articles as I embark on my own TNG journey, and the theme is the future of GI. In the “In Focus” article this quarter, Dr. Eugenia N. Uche-Anya and Dr. Tyler M. Berzin review the vast and emerging advances of artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopy, its role in augmenting patient care, obstacles in incorporating AI into current practice, and the future of AI in gastroenterology and hepatology. One important aspect of developing our future in these technologies includes getting involved with industry. Dr. Raman Muthusamy gives practical tips on developing and navigating relationships with industry, with highlights on understanding intellectual property and conflicts of interest.
Continuing our trek into the future of GI, telemedicine came into the fold with the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is clearly here to stay. Dr. Russ R. Arjal repositions telemedicine as a way to increase access to care and optimize practice revenue, with the aim of improving patient outcomes in the future.
Last, to ground this issue clinically, Dr. Jason Kwon and Dr. Paul T. Kroner review the gastrointestinal, hepatic, and pancreaticobiliary adverse manifestations and management of immune checkpoint inhibitors, especially now that immunotherapies have revolutionized the treatment of cancer. As gastroenterologists, we are and will be seeing more and more of these adverse events.
If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me ([email protected]). You may also contact Jillian Schweitzer ([email protected]), managing editor of TNG.
Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact: Philipp Bozzini is credited with having developed the first endoscope in 1805, called the Lichtleiter (German for “light conductor”), using a candle as its light source. Adolf Kussmaul, however, developed the first rigid gastroscope in 1868, recruiting a sword-swallower in his first demonstration.
Yours truly,
Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Advanced Endoscopy Fellow
Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Investing in GI innovation
Innovations in biomedical technology – from modern endoscopic devices and techniques to harnessing the microbiome to prevent and treat disease – have fundamentally changed the way in which we practice medicine and significantly improved the lives of our patients. In our February issue, we are pleased to highlight the launch of AGA’s GI Opportunity Fund, a new investment vehicle that provides AGA members and others a direct pathway to support development of promising, early-stage innovations by funding carefully vetted, cutting-edge start-up companies. We hope you will enjoy learning more about this exciting new initiative, which recently made its first major investment.
I want to thank GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Janice Jou for agreeing to spearhead this new column as its section editor – again, we invite you to nominate your colleagues, mentees, and others to be featured in future Member Spotlight columns.
We also highlight several recent papers published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study assessing clinical outcomes and adverse events in patients receiving oral vs. colonic fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) for recurrent C. difficile infection, and another evaluating the cost-effectiveness of earlier colorectal cancer screening in patients with obesity. On the policy front, we summarize GI-relevant portions of the $1.7 trillion FY 2023 Omnibus Appropriations bill, signed into law on Dec. 30, 2022, by President Biden, and assess its impact on Medicare payments, continuation of support for telehealth/virtual care, and NIH-funding. We hope you enjoy reading these and other articles presented in our February issue.
Don’t forget to register for DDW 2023, May 6-9, 2023, in Chicago – general registration is now open!
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief
Innovations in biomedical technology – from modern endoscopic devices and techniques to harnessing the microbiome to prevent and treat disease – have fundamentally changed the way in which we practice medicine and significantly improved the lives of our patients. In our February issue, we are pleased to highlight the launch of AGA’s GI Opportunity Fund, a new investment vehicle that provides AGA members and others a direct pathway to support development of promising, early-stage innovations by funding carefully vetted, cutting-edge start-up companies. We hope you will enjoy learning more about this exciting new initiative, which recently made its first major investment.
I want to thank GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Janice Jou for agreeing to spearhead this new column as its section editor – again, we invite you to nominate your colleagues, mentees, and others to be featured in future Member Spotlight columns.
We also highlight several recent papers published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study assessing clinical outcomes and adverse events in patients receiving oral vs. colonic fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) for recurrent C. difficile infection, and another evaluating the cost-effectiveness of earlier colorectal cancer screening in patients with obesity. On the policy front, we summarize GI-relevant portions of the $1.7 trillion FY 2023 Omnibus Appropriations bill, signed into law on Dec. 30, 2022, by President Biden, and assess its impact on Medicare payments, continuation of support for telehealth/virtual care, and NIH-funding. We hope you enjoy reading these and other articles presented in our February issue.
Don’t forget to register for DDW 2023, May 6-9, 2023, in Chicago – general registration is now open!
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief
Innovations in biomedical technology – from modern endoscopic devices and techniques to harnessing the microbiome to prevent and treat disease – have fundamentally changed the way in which we practice medicine and significantly improved the lives of our patients. In our February issue, we are pleased to highlight the launch of AGA’s GI Opportunity Fund, a new investment vehicle that provides AGA members and others a direct pathway to support development of promising, early-stage innovations by funding carefully vetted, cutting-edge start-up companies. We hope you will enjoy learning more about this exciting new initiative, which recently made its first major investment.
I want to thank GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Janice Jou for agreeing to spearhead this new column as its section editor – again, we invite you to nominate your colleagues, mentees, and others to be featured in future Member Spotlight columns.
We also highlight several recent papers published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study assessing clinical outcomes and adverse events in patients receiving oral vs. colonic fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) for recurrent C. difficile infection, and another evaluating the cost-effectiveness of earlier colorectal cancer screening in patients with obesity. On the policy front, we summarize GI-relevant portions of the $1.7 trillion FY 2023 Omnibus Appropriations bill, signed into law on Dec. 30, 2022, by President Biden, and assess its impact on Medicare payments, continuation of support for telehealth/virtual care, and NIH-funding. We hope you enjoy reading these and other articles presented in our February issue.
Don’t forget to register for DDW 2023, May 6-9, 2023, in Chicago – general registration is now open!
Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief
Setting higher standards for digital health technologies
“It’s influenced the way I see medicine and the work that I do around identifying quality, not in the conventional context in a hospital or a clinic, but applying that lens to the world of technology,” said Dr. Mathews, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.
Bringing greater visibility to digital health technologies is part of his life’s work.
“There is now an expectation that high quality must be part of the development process of these new technologies,” said Dr. Mathews.
In particular, he’d like to see noninvasive diagnostic technologies in the gastroenterology world become more patient-centric.
Bringing somebody into the hospital is often inconvenient and disruptive. The field is heading toward technologies that can be used in the home or in an outpatient setting. “I have some research in that area, and I’d love to see it ultimately reach the patient at the bedside, if possible.”
Dr. Mathews is a member of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology and a previous mentee in the Future Leaders Program.
In an interview, Dr. Mathews discussed his push to validate health technologies in the GI field and to make them more transparent to physicians and patients.
Question: Why did you choose GI?
Answer: I think the world of gastroenterology offers a tremendous amount of diversity in the way we manage and treat patients. There’s a huge spectrum of disease. There’s also the procedural aspect, which is very different from a lot of other medical specialties. For me particularly, there’s the opportunity to work on technology as it relates to GI, as well as research in that space.
Q: It seems like gastroenterology involves a lot of detective work. Would you say that’s true?
A: When you think of something like abdominal pain or GI symptoms, any place in the body can cause those symptoms to be present. You have to think broadly about all of the contributing factors, the whole patient as it relates to travel, pets, exposures, food, diet. You really can’t be myopic when you think about all the potential causes.
The name of the game is to provide answers whenever possible, but I will settle for getting someone feeling better, even if we don’t have the answer etched in stone.
Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?
A: I work in an academic institution at Johns Hopkins. I really enjoy the direct connection with patients. I’ve switched mostly to a hospital-based practice, which means I’m getting patients at their sickest. It’s really a privilege to provide an opportunity for improvement or support in that context. I also enjoy the teaching and training of the next generation of folks that are going into this field. There’s so much to learn, and I think trying to set that example and teach by doing is a great opportunity, and I really enjoy that as well.
Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you’re doing to address it.A: One of my focus areas on the research front is about providing greater transparency and validation around health technologies. How do patients know which health technologies to use? How do doctors know which ones to recommend or advocate for?
Q: Can you give an example of a technology of concern?
A: Looking at oncology and mobile apps, one study I coauthored in 2021 found that well over half did not meet physician or patient expectations. These were the most popular and highest rated apps available at the time. It shows that there’s a real disconnect between what the end users – the doctors and the patients – want from these solutions and what’s actually being provided.
There’s a flood of different solutions that are out there, and there really isn’t a streamlined way to know, as a clinician or as a patient, which ones really make a difference clinically and which ones are going to be helpful for you. And that’s been the focus of my research – understanding ways to evaluate technologies that are not so burdensome as to be purely in the realm of academics, but to be pragmatic.
Q: Who has had the strongest influence on your life?
A: I would say my spouse. She’s an academic physician at Hopkins. One of the things she has shown me is the importance of finding alignment in what you do professionally with the sort of goals that you have or the values that you hold as an individual. That’s why I’ve done some nontraditional things in my academic career. It’s really been in search of finding that alignment that matches my interests and goals, as opposed to just doing something because it’s a popular thing to do.
Lightning Round
Favorite sport: Soccer
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it? 80s pop music
Introvert or extrovert? Introvert
Favorite holiday: Christmas
Optimist or pessimist? Realist
Dr. Mathews is on LinkedIn . His health tech blog is Digital Differential.
“It’s influenced the way I see medicine and the work that I do around identifying quality, not in the conventional context in a hospital or a clinic, but applying that lens to the world of technology,” said Dr. Mathews, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.
Bringing greater visibility to digital health technologies is part of his life’s work.
“There is now an expectation that high quality must be part of the development process of these new technologies,” said Dr. Mathews.
In particular, he’d like to see noninvasive diagnostic technologies in the gastroenterology world become more patient-centric.
Bringing somebody into the hospital is often inconvenient and disruptive. The field is heading toward technologies that can be used in the home or in an outpatient setting. “I have some research in that area, and I’d love to see it ultimately reach the patient at the bedside, if possible.”
Dr. Mathews is a member of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology and a previous mentee in the Future Leaders Program.
In an interview, Dr. Mathews discussed his push to validate health technologies in the GI field and to make them more transparent to physicians and patients.
Question: Why did you choose GI?
Answer: I think the world of gastroenterology offers a tremendous amount of diversity in the way we manage and treat patients. There’s a huge spectrum of disease. There’s also the procedural aspect, which is very different from a lot of other medical specialties. For me particularly, there’s the opportunity to work on technology as it relates to GI, as well as research in that space.
Q: It seems like gastroenterology involves a lot of detective work. Would you say that’s true?
A: When you think of something like abdominal pain or GI symptoms, any place in the body can cause those symptoms to be present. You have to think broadly about all of the contributing factors, the whole patient as it relates to travel, pets, exposures, food, diet. You really can’t be myopic when you think about all the potential causes.
The name of the game is to provide answers whenever possible, but I will settle for getting someone feeling better, even if we don’t have the answer etched in stone.
Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?
A: I work in an academic institution at Johns Hopkins. I really enjoy the direct connection with patients. I’ve switched mostly to a hospital-based practice, which means I’m getting patients at their sickest. It’s really a privilege to provide an opportunity for improvement or support in that context. I also enjoy the teaching and training of the next generation of folks that are going into this field. There’s so much to learn, and I think trying to set that example and teach by doing is a great opportunity, and I really enjoy that as well.
Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you’re doing to address it.A: One of my focus areas on the research front is about providing greater transparency and validation around health technologies. How do patients know which health technologies to use? How do doctors know which ones to recommend or advocate for?
Q: Can you give an example of a technology of concern?
A: Looking at oncology and mobile apps, one study I coauthored in 2021 found that well over half did not meet physician or patient expectations. These were the most popular and highest rated apps available at the time. It shows that there’s a real disconnect between what the end users – the doctors and the patients – want from these solutions and what’s actually being provided.
There’s a flood of different solutions that are out there, and there really isn’t a streamlined way to know, as a clinician or as a patient, which ones really make a difference clinically and which ones are going to be helpful for you. And that’s been the focus of my research – understanding ways to evaluate technologies that are not so burdensome as to be purely in the realm of academics, but to be pragmatic.
Q: Who has had the strongest influence on your life?
A: I would say my spouse. She’s an academic physician at Hopkins. One of the things she has shown me is the importance of finding alignment in what you do professionally with the sort of goals that you have or the values that you hold as an individual. That’s why I’ve done some nontraditional things in my academic career. It’s really been in search of finding that alignment that matches my interests and goals, as opposed to just doing something because it’s a popular thing to do.
Lightning Round
Favorite sport: Soccer
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it? 80s pop music
Introvert or extrovert? Introvert
Favorite holiday: Christmas
Optimist or pessimist? Realist
Dr. Mathews is on LinkedIn . His health tech blog is Digital Differential.
“It’s influenced the way I see medicine and the work that I do around identifying quality, not in the conventional context in a hospital or a clinic, but applying that lens to the world of technology,” said Dr. Mathews, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.
Bringing greater visibility to digital health technologies is part of his life’s work.
“There is now an expectation that high quality must be part of the development process of these new technologies,” said Dr. Mathews.
In particular, he’d like to see noninvasive diagnostic technologies in the gastroenterology world become more patient-centric.
Bringing somebody into the hospital is often inconvenient and disruptive. The field is heading toward technologies that can be used in the home or in an outpatient setting. “I have some research in that area, and I’d love to see it ultimately reach the patient at the bedside, if possible.”
Dr. Mathews is a member of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology and a previous mentee in the Future Leaders Program.
In an interview, Dr. Mathews discussed his push to validate health technologies in the GI field and to make them more transparent to physicians and patients.
Question: Why did you choose GI?
Answer: I think the world of gastroenterology offers a tremendous amount of diversity in the way we manage and treat patients. There’s a huge spectrum of disease. There’s also the procedural aspect, which is very different from a lot of other medical specialties. For me particularly, there’s the opportunity to work on technology as it relates to GI, as well as research in that space.
Q: It seems like gastroenterology involves a lot of detective work. Would you say that’s true?
A: When you think of something like abdominal pain or GI symptoms, any place in the body can cause those symptoms to be present. You have to think broadly about all of the contributing factors, the whole patient as it relates to travel, pets, exposures, food, diet. You really can’t be myopic when you think about all the potential causes.
The name of the game is to provide answers whenever possible, but I will settle for getting someone feeling better, even if we don’t have the answer etched in stone.
Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?
A: I work in an academic institution at Johns Hopkins. I really enjoy the direct connection with patients. I’ve switched mostly to a hospital-based practice, which means I’m getting patients at their sickest. It’s really a privilege to provide an opportunity for improvement or support in that context. I also enjoy the teaching and training of the next generation of folks that are going into this field. There’s so much to learn, and I think trying to set that example and teach by doing is a great opportunity, and I really enjoy that as well.
Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you’re doing to address it.A: One of my focus areas on the research front is about providing greater transparency and validation around health technologies. How do patients know which health technologies to use? How do doctors know which ones to recommend or advocate for?
Q: Can you give an example of a technology of concern?
A: Looking at oncology and mobile apps, one study I coauthored in 2021 found that well over half did not meet physician or patient expectations. These were the most popular and highest rated apps available at the time. It shows that there’s a real disconnect between what the end users – the doctors and the patients – want from these solutions and what’s actually being provided.
There’s a flood of different solutions that are out there, and there really isn’t a streamlined way to know, as a clinician or as a patient, which ones really make a difference clinically and which ones are going to be helpful for you. And that’s been the focus of my research – understanding ways to evaluate technologies that are not so burdensome as to be purely in the realm of academics, but to be pragmatic.
Q: Who has had the strongest influence on your life?
A: I would say my spouse. She’s an academic physician at Hopkins. One of the things she has shown me is the importance of finding alignment in what you do professionally with the sort of goals that you have or the values that you hold as an individual. That’s why I’ve done some nontraditional things in my academic career. It’s really been in search of finding that alignment that matches my interests and goals, as opposed to just doing something because it’s a popular thing to do.
Lightning Round
Favorite sport: Soccer
What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it? 80s pop music
Introvert or extrovert? Introvert
Favorite holiday: Christmas
Optimist or pessimist? Realist
Dr. Mathews is on LinkedIn . His health tech blog is Digital Differential.
Six healthy lifestyle habits linked to slowed memory decline
Investigators found that a healthy diet, cognitive activity, regular physical exercise, not smoking, and abstaining from alcohol were significantly linked to slowed cognitive decline irrespective of APOE4 status.
After adjusting for health and socioeconomic factors, investigators found that each individual healthy behavior was associated with a slower-than-average decline in memory over a decade. A healthy diet emerged as the strongest deterrent, followed by cognitive activity and physical exercise.
“A healthy lifestyle is associated with slower memory decline, even in the presence of the APOE4 allele,” study investigators led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, of the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders and the department of neurology, Xuan Wu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, write.
“This study might offer important information to protect older adults against memory decline,” they add.
The study was published online in the BMJ.
Preventing memory decline
Memory “continuously declines as people age,” but age-related memory decline is not necessarily a prodrome of dementia and can “merely be senescent forgetfulness,” the investigators note. This can be “reversed or [can] become stable,” instead of progressing to a pathologic state.
Factors affecting memory include aging, APOE4 genotype, chronic diseases, and lifestyle patterns, with lifestyle “receiving increasing attention as a modifiable behavior.”
Nevertheless, few studies have focused on the impact of lifestyle on memory, and those that have are mostly cross-sectional and also “did not consider the interaction between a healthy lifestyle and genetic risk,” the researchers note.
To investigate, the researchers conducted a longitudinal study, known as the China Cognition and Aging Study, that considered genetic risk as well as lifestyle factors.
The study began in 2009 and concluded in 2019. Participants were evaluated and underwent neuropsychological testing in 2012, 2014, 2016, and at the study’s conclusion.
Participants (n = 29,072; mean [SD] age, 72.23 [6.61] years; 48.54% women; 20.43% APOE4 carriers) were required to have normal cognitive function at baseline. Data on those whose condition progressed to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia during the follow-up period were excluded after their diagnosis.
The Mini–Mental State Examination was used to assess global cognitive function. Memory function was assessed using the World Health Organization/University of California, Los Angeles Auditory Verbal Learning Test.
“Lifestyle” consisted of six modifiable factors: physical exercise (weekly frequency and total time), smoking (current, former, or never-smokers), alcohol consumption (never drank, drank occasionally, low to excess drinking, and heavy drinking), diet (daily intake of 12 food items: fruits, vegetables, fish, meat, dairy products, salt, oil, eggs, cereals, legumes, nuts, tea), cognitive activity (writing, reading, playing cards, mahjong, other games), and social contact (participating in meetings, attending parties, visiting friends/relatives, traveling, chatting online).
Participants’ lifestyles were scored on the basis of the number of healthy factors they engaged in.
Participants were also stratified by APOE genotype into APOE4 carriers and noncarriers.
Demographic and other items of health information, including the presence of medical illness, were used as covariates. The researchers also included the “learning effect of each participant as a covariate, due to repeated cognitive assessments.”
Important for public health
During the 10-year period, 7,164 participants died, and 3,567 stopped participating.
Participants in the favorable and average groups showed slower memory decline per increased year of age (0.007 [0.005-0.009], P < .001; and 0.002 [0 .000-0.003], P = .033 points higher, respectively), compared with those in the unfavorable group.
Healthy diet had the strongest protective effect on memory.
Memory decline occurred faster in APOE4 vesus non-APOE4 carriers (0.002 points/year [95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.003]; P = .007).
But APOE4 carriers with favorable and average lifestyles showed slower memory decline (0.027 [0.023-0.031] and 0.014 [0.010-0.019], respectively), compared with those with unfavorable lifestyles. Similar findings were obtained in non-APOE4 carriers.
Those with favorable or average lifestyle were respectively almost 90% and 30% less likely to develop dementia or MCI, compared with those with an unfavorable lifestyle.
The authors acknowledge the study’s limitations, including its observational design and the potential for measurement errors, owing to self-reporting of lifestyle factors. Additionally, some participants did not return for follow-up evaluations, leading to potential selection bias.
Nevertheless, the findings “might offer important information for public health to protect older [people] against memory decline,” they note – especially since the study “provides evidence that these effects also include individuals with the APOE4 allele.”
‘Important, encouraging’ research
In a comment, Severine Sabia, PhD, a senior researcher at the Université Paris Cité, INSERM Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Medicalé, France, called the findings “important and encouraging.”
However, said Dr. Sabia, who was not involved with the study, “there remain important research questions that need to be investigated in order to identify key behaviors: which combination, the cutoff of risk, and when to intervene.”
Future research on prevention “should examine a wider range of possible risk factors” and should also “identify specific exposures associated with the greatest risk, while also considering the risk threshold and age at exposure for each one.”
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Sabia and co-author Archana Singh-Manoux, PhD, note that the risk of cognitive decline and dementia are probably determined by multiple factors.
They liken it to the “multifactorial risk paradigm introduced by the Framingham study,” which has “led to a substantial reduction in cardiovascular disease.” A similar approach could be used with dementia prevention, they suggest.
The authors received support from the Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University for the submitted work. One of the authors received a grant from the French National Research Agency. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sabia received grant funding from the French National Research Agency. Dr. Singh-Manoux received grants from the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators found that a healthy diet, cognitive activity, regular physical exercise, not smoking, and abstaining from alcohol were significantly linked to slowed cognitive decline irrespective of APOE4 status.
After adjusting for health and socioeconomic factors, investigators found that each individual healthy behavior was associated with a slower-than-average decline in memory over a decade. A healthy diet emerged as the strongest deterrent, followed by cognitive activity and physical exercise.
“A healthy lifestyle is associated with slower memory decline, even in the presence of the APOE4 allele,” study investigators led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, of the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders and the department of neurology, Xuan Wu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, write.
“This study might offer important information to protect older adults against memory decline,” they add.
The study was published online in the BMJ.
Preventing memory decline
Memory “continuously declines as people age,” but age-related memory decline is not necessarily a prodrome of dementia and can “merely be senescent forgetfulness,” the investigators note. This can be “reversed or [can] become stable,” instead of progressing to a pathologic state.
Factors affecting memory include aging, APOE4 genotype, chronic diseases, and lifestyle patterns, with lifestyle “receiving increasing attention as a modifiable behavior.”
Nevertheless, few studies have focused on the impact of lifestyle on memory, and those that have are mostly cross-sectional and also “did not consider the interaction between a healthy lifestyle and genetic risk,” the researchers note.
To investigate, the researchers conducted a longitudinal study, known as the China Cognition and Aging Study, that considered genetic risk as well as lifestyle factors.
The study began in 2009 and concluded in 2019. Participants were evaluated and underwent neuropsychological testing in 2012, 2014, 2016, and at the study’s conclusion.
Participants (n = 29,072; mean [SD] age, 72.23 [6.61] years; 48.54% women; 20.43% APOE4 carriers) were required to have normal cognitive function at baseline. Data on those whose condition progressed to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia during the follow-up period were excluded after their diagnosis.
The Mini–Mental State Examination was used to assess global cognitive function. Memory function was assessed using the World Health Organization/University of California, Los Angeles Auditory Verbal Learning Test.
“Lifestyle” consisted of six modifiable factors: physical exercise (weekly frequency and total time), smoking (current, former, or never-smokers), alcohol consumption (never drank, drank occasionally, low to excess drinking, and heavy drinking), diet (daily intake of 12 food items: fruits, vegetables, fish, meat, dairy products, salt, oil, eggs, cereals, legumes, nuts, tea), cognitive activity (writing, reading, playing cards, mahjong, other games), and social contact (participating in meetings, attending parties, visiting friends/relatives, traveling, chatting online).
Participants’ lifestyles were scored on the basis of the number of healthy factors they engaged in.
Participants were also stratified by APOE genotype into APOE4 carriers and noncarriers.
Demographic and other items of health information, including the presence of medical illness, were used as covariates. The researchers also included the “learning effect of each participant as a covariate, due to repeated cognitive assessments.”
Important for public health
During the 10-year period, 7,164 participants died, and 3,567 stopped participating.
Participants in the favorable and average groups showed slower memory decline per increased year of age (0.007 [0.005-0.009], P < .001; and 0.002 [0 .000-0.003], P = .033 points higher, respectively), compared with those in the unfavorable group.
Healthy diet had the strongest protective effect on memory.
Memory decline occurred faster in APOE4 vesus non-APOE4 carriers (0.002 points/year [95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.003]; P = .007).
But APOE4 carriers with favorable and average lifestyles showed slower memory decline (0.027 [0.023-0.031] and 0.014 [0.010-0.019], respectively), compared with those with unfavorable lifestyles. Similar findings were obtained in non-APOE4 carriers.
Those with favorable or average lifestyle were respectively almost 90% and 30% less likely to develop dementia or MCI, compared with those with an unfavorable lifestyle.
The authors acknowledge the study’s limitations, including its observational design and the potential for measurement errors, owing to self-reporting of lifestyle factors. Additionally, some participants did not return for follow-up evaluations, leading to potential selection bias.
Nevertheless, the findings “might offer important information for public health to protect older [people] against memory decline,” they note – especially since the study “provides evidence that these effects also include individuals with the APOE4 allele.”
‘Important, encouraging’ research
In a comment, Severine Sabia, PhD, a senior researcher at the Université Paris Cité, INSERM Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Medicalé, France, called the findings “important and encouraging.”
However, said Dr. Sabia, who was not involved with the study, “there remain important research questions that need to be investigated in order to identify key behaviors: which combination, the cutoff of risk, and when to intervene.”
Future research on prevention “should examine a wider range of possible risk factors” and should also “identify specific exposures associated with the greatest risk, while also considering the risk threshold and age at exposure for each one.”
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Sabia and co-author Archana Singh-Manoux, PhD, note that the risk of cognitive decline and dementia are probably determined by multiple factors.
They liken it to the “multifactorial risk paradigm introduced by the Framingham study,” which has “led to a substantial reduction in cardiovascular disease.” A similar approach could be used with dementia prevention, they suggest.
The authors received support from the Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University for the submitted work. One of the authors received a grant from the French National Research Agency. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sabia received grant funding from the French National Research Agency. Dr. Singh-Manoux received grants from the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
Investigators found that a healthy diet, cognitive activity, regular physical exercise, not smoking, and abstaining from alcohol were significantly linked to slowed cognitive decline irrespective of APOE4 status.
After adjusting for health and socioeconomic factors, investigators found that each individual healthy behavior was associated with a slower-than-average decline in memory over a decade. A healthy diet emerged as the strongest deterrent, followed by cognitive activity and physical exercise.
“A healthy lifestyle is associated with slower memory decline, even in the presence of the APOE4 allele,” study investigators led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, of the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders and the department of neurology, Xuan Wu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, write.
“This study might offer important information to protect older adults against memory decline,” they add.
The study was published online in the BMJ.
Preventing memory decline
Memory “continuously declines as people age,” but age-related memory decline is not necessarily a prodrome of dementia and can “merely be senescent forgetfulness,” the investigators note. This can be “reversed or [can] become stable,” instead of progressing to a pathologic state.
Factors affecting memory include aging, APOE4 genotype, chronic diseases, and lifestyle patterns, with lifestyle “receiving increasing attention as a modifiable behavior.”
Nevertheless, few studies have focused on the impact of lifestyle on memory, and those that have are mostly cross-sectional and also “did not consider the interaction between a healthy lifestyle and genetic risk,” the researchers note.
To investigate, the researchers conducted a longitudinal study, known as the China Cognition and Aging Study, that considered genetic risk as well as lifestyle factors.
The study began in 2009 and concluded in 2019. Participants were evaluated and underwent neuropsychological testing in 2012, 2014, 2016, and at the study’s conclusion.
Participants (n = 29,072; mean [SD] age, 72.23 [6.61] years; 48.54% women; 20.43% APOE4 carriers) were required to have normal cognitive function at baseline. Data on those whose condition progressed to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia during the follow-up period were excluded after their diagnosis.
The Mini–Mental State Examination was used to assess global cognitive function. Memory function was assessed using the World Health Organization/University of California, Los Angeles Auditory Verbal Learning Test.
“Lifestyle” consisted of six modifiable factors: physical exercise (weekly frequency and total time), smoking (current, former, or never-smokers), alcohol consumption (never drank, drank occasionally, low to excess drinking, and heavy drinking), diet (daily intake of 12 food items: fruits, vegetables, fish, meat, dairy products, salt, oil, eggs, cereals, legumes, nuts, tea), cognitive activity (writing, reading, playing cards, mahjong, other games), and social contact (participating in meetings, attending parties, visiting friends/relatives, traveling, chatting online).
Participants’ lifestyles were scored on the basis of the number of healthy factors they engaged in.
Participants were also stratified by APOE genotype into APOE4 carriers and noncarriers.
Demographic and other items of health information, including the presence of medical illness, were used as covariates. The researchers also included the “learning effect of each participant as a covariate, due to repeated cognitive assessments.”
Important for public health
During the 10-year period, 7,164 participants died, and 3,567 stopped participating.
Participants in the favorable and average groups showed slower memory decline per increased year of age (0.007 [0.005-0.009], P < .001; and 0.002 [0 .000-0.003], P = .033 points higher, respectively), compared with those in the unfavorable group.
Healthy diet had the strongest protective effect on memory.
Memory decline occurred faster in APOE4 vesus non-APOE4 carriers (0.002 points/year [95% confidence interval, 0.001-0.003]; P = .007).
But APOE4 carriers with favorable and average lifestyles showed slower memory decline (0.027 [0.023-0.031] and 0.014 [0.010-0.019], respectively), compared with those with unfavorable lifestyles. Similar findings were obtained in non-APOE4 carriers.
Those with favorable or average lifestyle were respectively almost 90% and 30% less likely to develop dementia or MCI, compared with those with an unfavorable lifestyle.
The authors acknowledge the study’s limitations, including its observational design and the potential for measurement errors, owing to self-reporting of lifestyle factors. Additionally, some participants did not return for follow-up evaluations, leading to potential selection bias.
Nevertheless, the findings “might offer important information for public health to protect older [people] against memory decline,” they note – especially since the study “provides evidence that these effects also include individuals with the APOE4 allele.”
‘Important, encouraging’ research
In a comment, Severine Sabia, PhD, a senior researcher at the Université Paris Cité, INSERM Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Medicalé, France, called the findings “important and encouraging.”
However, said Dr. Sabia, who was not involved with the study, “there remain important research questions that need to be investigated in order to identify key behaviors: which combination, the cutoff of risk, and when to intervene.”
Future research on prevention “should examine a wider range of possible risk factors” and should also “identify specific exposures associated with the greatest risk, while also considering the risk threshold and age at exposure for each one.”
In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Sabia and co-author Archana Singh-Manoux, PhD, note that the risk of cognitive decline and dementia are probably determined by multiple factors.
They liken it to the “multifactorial risk paradigm introduced by the Framingham study,” which has “led to a substantial reduction in cardiovascular disease.” A similar approach could be used with dementia prevention, they suggest.
The authors received support from the Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University for the submitted work. One of the authors received a grant from the French National Research Agency. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sabia received grant funding from the French National Research Agency. Dr. Singh-Manoux received grants from the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.
A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE BMJ
What's your diagnosis?
Answer: Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome.
According to an American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Guideline,1 for patients with recurrence of small bowel bleeding, endoscopic management could be considered depending on the patient’s clinical course and response to prior therapy. Consequently, injections of lauromacrogol with SBE (single-balloon enteroscopy) were given (Figure D). Lesions that ranged from 1 to 2 cm were injected with 1-2 mL lauromacrogol until the mucosa turned white. Three SBEs had been performed in a 5-month period. A total of 20 lesions were successfully treated with lauromacrogol. The treated hemangiomas became small, and the site healed 5 months after treatment (Figures E and F). The patient has been followed for 1 year, and he remains in good clinical condition with his latest hemoglobin level at 110 g/L. No further blood transfusion is needed.
BRBNS is a rare disorder characterized by discrete venous malformations of varying size and appearance that are present on the skin and within the gastrointestinal tract.2With wider application of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and the increase of image resolution, the detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of BRBNS are significantly improved. Treatment of BRBNS varies depending on the site, size, and number of lesions. Medication, surgery, and endoscopic therapy are currently clinically applied. The successful use of sirolimus was recently reported in the treatment of vascular lesions.3Sirolimus has potential adverse effects on renal function, bone marrow, and cholesterol metabolism, however. In consideration of the patient’s young age, we did not adopt this method. Surgical resection is more suitable for limited or life-threatening lesions. The lesions in this patient were mild and sporadic. Consequently, in this case, endoscopic injection of lauromacrogol was performed. This was the most complicated case of endoscopic treatment of BRBNS in our center and proved lauromacrogol injection was a feasible approach. According to a literature review, lauromacrogol has been used to treat vascular lesions for decades, but there is still no standard instruction for the dosage of lauromacrogol. We hope that our experience can be a reference for the endoscopic treatment of BRBNS.
References (add links)
1. Gerson LB et al. ACG clinical guideline: Diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol.
2. Felton SJ and Ferguson JE. Multiple cutaneous swellings associated with sudden collapse. JAMA.
3. Yuksekkaya H et al. Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome: Successful treatment with sirolimus. Pediatrics.
Answer: Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome.
According to an American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Guideline,1 for patients with recurrence of small bowel bleeding, endoscopic management could be considered depending on the patient’s clinical course and response to prior therapy. Consequently, injections of lauromacrogol with SBE (single-balloon enteroscopy) were given (Figure D). Lesions that ranged from 1 to 2 cm were injected with 1-2 mL lauromacrogol until the mucosa turned white. Three SBEs had been performed in a 5-month period. A total of 20 lesions were successfully treated with lauromacrogol. The treated hemangiomas became small, and the site healed 5 months after treatment (Figures E and F). The patient has been followed for 1 year, and he remains in good clinical condition with his latest hemoglobin level at 110 g/L. No further blood transfusion is needed.
BRBNS is a rare disorder characterized by discrete venous malformations of varying size and appearance that are present on the skin and within the gastrointestinal tract.2With wider application of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and the increase of image resolution, the detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of BRBNS are significantly improved. Treatment of BRBNS varies depending on the site, size, and number of lesions. Medication, surgery, and endoscopic therapy are currently clinically applied. The successful use of sirolimus was recently reported in the treatment of vascular lesions.3Sirolimus has potential adverse effects on renal function, bone marrow, and cholesterol metabolism, however. In consideration of the patient’s young age, we did not adopt this method. Surgical resection is more suitable for limited or life-threatening lesions. The lesions in this patient were mild and sporadic. Consequently, in this case, endoscopic injection of lauromacrogol was performed. This was the most complicated case of endoscopic treatment of BRBNS in our center and proved lauromacrogol injection was a feasible approach. According to a literature review, lauromacrogol has been used to treat vascular lesions for decades, but there is still no standard instruction for the dosage of lauromacrogol. We hope that our experience can be a reference for the endoscopic treatment of BRBNS.
References (add links)
1. Gerson LB et al. ACG clinical guideline: Diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol.
2. Felton SJ and Ferguson JE. Multiple cutaneous swellings associated with sudden collapse. JAMA.
3. Yuksekkaya H et al. Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome: Successful treatment with sirolimus. Pediatrics.
Answer: Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome.
According to an American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Guideline,1 for patients with recurrence of small bowel bleeding, endoscopic management could be considered depending on the patient’s clinical course and response to prior therapy. Consequently, injections of lauromacrogol with SBE (single-balloon enteroscopy) were given (Figure D). Lesions that ranged from 1 to 2 cm were injected with 1-2 mL lauromacrogol until the mucosa turned white. Three SBEs had been performed in a 5-month period. A total of 20 lesions were successfully treated with lauromacrogol. The treated hemangiomas became small, and the site healed 5 months after treatment (Figures E and F). The patient has been followed for 1 year, and he remains in good clinical condition with his latest hemoglobin level at 110 g/L. No further blood transfusion is needed.
BRBNS is a rare disorder characterized by discrete venous malformations of varying size and appearance that are present on the skin and within the gastrointestinal tract.2With wider application of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and the increase of image resolution, the detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of BRBNS are significantly improved. Treatment of BRBNS varies depending on the site, size, and number of lesions. Medication, surgery, and endoscopic therapy are currently clinically applied. The successful use of sirolimus was recently reported in the treatment of vascular lesions.3Sirolimus has potential adverse effects on renal function, bone marrow, and cholesterol metabolism, however. In consideration of the patient’s young age, we did not adopt this method. Surgical resection is more suitable for limited or life-threatening lesions. The lesions in this patient were mild and sporadic. Consequently, in this case, endoscopic injection of lauromacrogol was performed. This was the most complicated case of endoscopic treatment of BRBNS in our center and proved lauromacrogol injection was a feasible approach. According to a literature review, lauromacrogol has been used to treat vascular lesions for decades, but there is still no standard instruction for the dosage of lauromacrogol. We hope that our experience can be a reference for the endoscopic treatment of BRBNS.
References (add links)
1. Gerson LB et al. ACG clinical guideline: Diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol.
2. Felton SJ and Ferguson JE. Multiple cutaneous swellings associated with sudden collapse. JAMA.
3. Yuksekkaya H et al. Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome: Successful treatment with sirolimus. Pediatrics.
A 13-year-old boy presented with recurrent melena for 10 years accompanied with dizziness and fatigue. This patient had no history of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use, peptic ulcer, or chronic liver disease, and no family history of gastrointestinal bleeding. He was born with a right foot hemangioma that was resected when he was 2 years old. Additionally, he had received multiple blood transfusions for iron deficiency anemia since childhood. The body mass index was 16.5 kg/m2 and physical examination revealed active bowel sounds.
Laboratory examinations showed severe iron deficiency anemia (the lowest hemoglobin available was 36 g/L) and positive stool occult blood. Gastroscopy unveiled superficial gastritis and colonoscopy was normal. Second-look examinations showed the same results. No clinically important signs were observed on computed tomography scan. Given these results, small intestinal bleeding was considered. Therefore, a video capsule endoscopy (VCE) was carried out and revealed multifocal hemangioma-like purplish blue lesions in jejunum and ileum (Figure A). Then a single-balloon enteroscopy (SBE) was performed, which showed multifocal vascular lesions ranging between 1.0 and 2.0 cm in the jejunum and ileum (Figure B, C).
Based on these findings, what is your diagnosis? What is the next step in management for this patient?
Flu, other common viruses linked to neurologic disease
People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows.
The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.
The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders.
“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”
For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.
Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.
Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.
“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”
The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.
The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows.
The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.
The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders.
“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”
For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.
Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.
Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.
“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”
The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.
The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows.
The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.
The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders.
“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”
For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.
Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.
Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.
“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”
The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.
The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.
A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.
FROM NEURON
If we care about cancer patients, we must care about climate change
Because we care about our patients, we need to get involved in the climate change movement. If we want to help prevent cancer and deliver the best possible care to our patients, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. As addressed in an earlier version of this column, burning fossil fuels results in the release of particulate matter and particles measuring 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), are classified as group 1 carcinogens by the International Association of Research and Cancer.
Fossil fuels also release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases) which trap solar radiation that would otherwise have been reflected back into space after hitting the earth’s surface. Instead, it is redirected back to earth as infrared radiation warming the planet by 1.1° C since preindustrial times.
Climate change has a number of consequences, including more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, warming seas, environmental degradation, and affects water and food quality, supply, and production. A global increase of 1.5° C above the preindustrial average risks catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse, prompting the editors of over 260 health journals to call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health.
In October, the 2022 version of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change was issued and the findings are not good. “After 30 years of UNFCCC negotiations, the Lancet Countdown indicators show that countries and companies continue to make choices that threaten the health and survival of people in every part of the world. As countries devise ways to recover from the coexisting crises, the evidence is unequivocal. At this critical juncture, an immediate, health-centered response can still secure a future in which world populations can not only survive, but thrive,” the authors wrote. Governments and companies continue to prioritize fossil fuels over people’s health.
Among the key findings from the report, Marina Romanello, PhD, of the Institute for Global Health at University College London, and her colleagues, call for “A health-centered response to the coexisting climate, energy, and cost-of-living crises provides an opportunity to deliver a healthy, low-carbon future. The associated reduction in the burden of disease will in turn reduce the strain on overwhelmed health care providers, and enable better care.”
The authors also state that “Well-prepared health systems are essential to protect populations from the health impacts of climate change. However, global health systems have been drastically weakened by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the funds available for climate action decreased in 239 (30%) of 798 cities, with health systems increasingly being affected by extreme weather events and supply chain disruptions.”
And, the authors are concerned that health systems have left themselves vulnerable to climate change–related health hazards because they have not adapted their operations for climate-related changes. “Only 48 of 95 countries have assessed their climate change adaptation needs and only 63% of countries reported high to very high implementation status for health emergency management in 2021. Increasing adaptation to climate change has the potential to simultaneously improve the capacity of health systems to manage both future infectious disease outbreaks and other health emergencies.”
There is roughly a 50% chance that the 1.5° C threshold proposed in the Paris Agreement will be exceeded within 5 years. The carbon intensity of the global energy system has been reduced by less than 1% from 1992 levels, when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted. At our current pace, global emissions could be 13.7% above 2010 levels by 2030 and fully decarbonizing the energy system would take 150 years. Clearly, we are nowhere near meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement signed in 2015 by 192 countries and the European Union. Participants pledged to decrease their carbon footprint by 50% by 2030, and net zero by the end of the century.
The effect of increasing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will have a massive impact on the prevention and care of cancer patients. Air pollution is responsible for about 14% of lung cancer deaths throughout the world. Rising temperatures lead to extreme weather events which disrupts infrastructure and the ability to access health care, leading to delays in treatment, increased morbidity, and death. Screening rates for cancer go down, which leads to more patients presenting with advanced cancer in the future.
As oncologists who care deeply about their patients, we need to get actively involved. It is our responsibility to our current and future patients to do whatever we can to prevent cancer and reduce its complications.
Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.
Because we care about our patients, we need to get involved in the climate change movement. If we want to help prevent cancer and deliver the best possible care to our patients, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. As addressed in an earlier version of this column, burning fossil fuels results in the release of particulate matter and particles measuring 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), are classified as group 1 carcinogens by the International Association of Research and Cancer.
Fossil fuels also release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases) which trap solar radiation that would otherwise have been reflected back into space after hitting the earth’s surface. Instead, it is redirected back to earth as infrared radiation warming the planet by 1.1° C since preindustrial times.
Climate change has a number of consequences, including more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, warming seas, environmental degradation, and affects water and food quality, supply, and production. A global increase of 1.5° C above the preindustrial average risks catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse, prompting the editors of over 260 health journals to call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health.
In October, the 2022 version of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change was issued and the findings are not good. “After 30 years of UNFCCC negotiations, the Lancet Countdown indicators show that countries and companies continue to make choices that threaten the health and survival of people in every part of the world. As countries devise ways to recover from the coexisting crises, the evidence is unequivocal. At this critical juncture, an immediate, health-centered response can still secure a future in which world populations can not only survive, but thrive,” the authors wrote. Governments and companies continue to prioritize fossil fuels over people’s health.
Among the key findings from the report, Marina Romanello, PhD, of the Institute for Global Health at University College London, and her colleagues, call for “A health-centered response to the coexisting climate, energy, and cost-of-living crises provides an opportunity to deliver a healthy, low-carbon future. The associated reduction in the burden of disease will in turn reduce the strain on overwhelmed health care providers, and enable better care.”
The authors also state that “Well-prepared health systems are essential to protect populations from the health impacts of climate change. However, global health systems have been drastically weakened by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the funds available for climate action decreased in 239 (30%) of 798 cities, with health systems increasingly being affected by extreme weather events and supply chain disruptions.”
And, the authors are concerned that health systems have left themselves vulnerable to climate change–related health hazards because they have not adapted their operations for climate-related changes. “Only 48 of 95 countries have assessed their climate change adaptation needs and only 63% of countries reported high to very high implementation status for health emergency management in 2021. Increasing adaptation to climate change has the potential to simultaneously improve the capacity of health systems to manage both future infectious disease outbreaks and other health emergencies.”
There is roughly a 50% chance that the 1.5° C threshold proposed in the Paris Agreement will be exceeded within 5 years. The carbon intensity of the global energy system has been reduced by less than 1% from 1992 levels, when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted. At our current pace, global emissions could be 13.7% above 2010 levels by 2030 and fully decarbonizing the energy system would take 150 years. Clearly, we are nowhere near meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement signed in 2015 by 192 countries and the European Union. Participants pledged to decrease their carbon footprint by 50% by 2030, and net zero by the end of the century.
The effect of increasing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will have a massive impact on the prevention and care of cancer patients. Air pollution is responsible for about 14% of lung cancer deaths throughout the world. Rising temperatures lead to extreme weather events which disrupts infrastructure and the ability to access health care, leading to delays in treatment, increased morbidity, and death. Screening rates for cancer go down, which leads to more patients presenting with advanced cancer in the future.
As oncologists who care deeply about their patients, we need to get actively involved. It is our responsibility to our current and future patients to do whatever we can to prevent cancer and reduce its complications.
Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.
Because we care about our patients, we need to get involved in the climate change movement. If we want to help prevent cancer and deliver the best possible care to our patients, we need to stop burning fossil fuels. As addressed in an earlier version of this column, burning fossil fuels results in the release of particulate matter and particles measuring 2.5 micrometers in diameter (PM2.5), are classified as group 1 carcinogens by the International Association of Research and Cancer.
Fossil fuels also release greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and fluorinated gases) which trap solar radiation that would otherwise have been reflected back into space after hitting the earth’s surface. Instead, it is redirected back to earth as infrared radiation warming the planet by 1.1° C since preindustrial times.
Climate change has a number of consequences, including more extreme weather events, rising sea levels, warming seas, environmental degradation, and affects water and food quality, supply, and production. A global increase of 1.5° C above the preindustrial average risks catastrophic harm to health that will be impossible to reverse, prompting the editors of over 260 health journals to call for emergency action to limit global temperature increases, restore biodiversity, and protect health.
In October, the 2022 version of the Lancet Countdown on health and climate change was issued and the findings are not good. “After 30 years of UNFCCC negotiations, the Lancet Countdown indicators show that countries and companies continue to make choices that threaten the health and survival of people in every part of the world. As countries devise ways to recover from the coexisting crises, the evidence is unequivocal. At this critical juncture, an immediate, health-centered response can still secure a future in which world populations can not only survive, but thrive,” the authors wrote. Governments and companies continue to prioritize fossil fuels over people’s health.
Among the key findings from the report, Marina Romanello, PhD, of the Institute for Global Health at University College London, and her colleagues, call for “A health-centered response to the coexisting climate, energy, and cost-of-living crises provides an opportunity to deliver a healthy, low-carbon future. The associated reduction in the burden of disease will in turn reduce the strain on overwhelmed health care providers, and enable better care.”
The authors also state that “Well-prepared health systems are essential to protect populations from the health impacts of climate change. However, global health systems have been drastically weakened by the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, and the funds available for climate action decreased in 239 (30%) of 798 cities, with health systems increasingly being affected by extreme weather events and supply chain disruptions.”
And, the authors are concerned that health systems have left themselves vulnerable to climate change–related health hazards because they have not adapted their operations for climate-related changes. “Only 48 of 95 countries have assessed their climate change adaptation needs and only 63% of countries reported high to very high implementation status for health emergency management in 2021. Increasing adaptation to climate change has the potential to simultaneously improve the capacity of health systems to manage both future infectious disease outbreaks and other health emergencies.”
There is roughly a 50% chance that the 1.5° C threshold proposed in the Paris Agreement will be exceeded within 5 years. The carbon intensity of the global energy system has been reduced by less than 1% from 1992 levels, when the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was adopted. At our current pace, global emissions could be 13.7% above 2010 levels by 2030 and fully decarbonizing the energy system would take 150 years. Clearly, we are nowhere near meeting the goals of the Paris Agreement signed in 2015 by 192 countries and the European Union. Participants pledged to decrease their carbon footprint by 50% by 2030, and net zero by the end of the century.
The effect of increasing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere will have a massive impact on the prevention and care of cancer patients. Air pollution is responsible for about 14% of lung cancer deaths throughout the world. Rising temperatures lead to extreme weather events which disrupts infrastructure and the ability to access health care, leading to delays in treatment, increased morbidity, and death. Screening rates for cancer go down, which leads to more patients presenting with advanced cancer in the future.
As oncologists who care deeply about their patients, we need to get actively involved. It is our responsibility to our current and future patients to do whatever we can to prevent cancer and reduce its complications.
Dr. Schiller is a medical oncologist and founding member of Oncologists United for Climate and Health. She is a former board member of the International Association for the Study of Lung Cancer and a current board member of the Lung Cancer Research Foundation.
Severe health diagnoses drive suicide risk
Individuals diagnosed with a severe physical health condition were significantly more likely to commit suicide at 6 months and at 1 year later, based on data from more than 47 million individuals in a national database.
Previous smaller studies have shown a link between increased risk for suicide and a range of health conditions including cancer, coronary heart disease, neurologic conditions, diabetes, and osteoporosis, Vahé Nafilyan, PhD, of the Office for National Statistics, Newport, England, and colleagues wrote.
However, large-scale population-level studies of the association between specific diagnoses and suicide are lacking, they said.
In a study published in The Lancet Regional Health–Europe, the researchers reviewed a dataset that combined the 2011 Census, death registration records, and the Hospital Episode Statistics. The study population included 47,354,696 individuals aged 6 years and older living in England in 2017. The mean age of the study population was 39.6 years, and 52% were female. The researchers examined deaths that occurred between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2021.
The health conditions included in the analysis were low-survival cancers, chronic ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and degenerative neurological disease.
The diagnosis of any of these conditions significantly increased the risk for suicide compared with controls. The highest risk appeared within 6 months of a diagnosis or first treatment, but the increased risk persisted at 1 year.
The suicide rate among low-survival cancer patients was 16.6 per 100,000 patients, compared with 5.7 per 100,000 controls; at 1 year, these rates were 21.6 and 9.5 per 100,000 patients and controls, respectively.
For COPD patients, the suicide rate at 6 months after diagnosis was 13.7 per 100,000 patients versus 5.6 per 100,000 matched controls; the suicide rates at 1 year were 22.4 per 100,000 patients and 10.6 per 100,000 matched controls.
The suicide rate at 6 months for individuals diagnosed with chronic ischemic heart disease was 11.0 per 100,000 patients and 4.2 per 100,000 matched controls; at 1 year, the suicide rates were 16.1 per 100,000 patients and 8.8 per 100,000 matched controls.
The 1-year suicide rate was especially high among patients with degenerative neurological conditions (114.5 per 100,000 patients); however, the estimate was considered imprecise because of the rarity of these diseases and subsequent low number of suicides, the researchers noted.
The results support data from previous studies showing links between increased risk of suicide and severe physical conditions, the researchers wrote. Patterns of suicide were similar between men and women and after adjusting for sociodemographic factors.
The findings were limited by the inability to fully control for a history of depression or self-harm, and by the imprecise estimates given the rare occurrence of suicide overall, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the late registration of deaths from external causes and the focus only on suicides that occurred in England and Wales, meaning that individuals who traveled abroad for assisted suicide were not captured in the dataset.
“Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the elevated risk of suicide and help provide the best support to these patients,” the researchers concluded.
However, the current results enhance the literature with a large, population-based review of the elevated suicide risk among individuals newly diagnosed with severe health conditions, and reflect the need for better support for these patients to help with coping, they said.
The study was funded by the Office for National Statistics. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Individuals diagnosed with a severe physical health condition were significantly more likely to commit suicide at 6 months and at 1 year later, based on data from more than 47 million individuals in a national database.
Previous smaller studies have shown a link between increased risk for suicide and a range of health conditions including cancer, coronary heart disease, neurologic conditions, diabetes, and osteoporosis, Vahé Nafilyan, PhD, of the Office for National Statistics, Newport, England, and colleagues wrote.
However, large-scale population-level studies of the association between specific diagnoses and suicide are lacking, they said.
In a study published in The Lancet Regional Health–Europe, the researchers reviewed a dataset that combined the 2011 Census, death registration records, and the Hospital Episode Statistics. The study population included 47,354,696 individuals aged 6 years and older living in England in 2017. The mean age of the study population was 39.6 years, and 52% were female. The researchers examined deaths that occurred between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2021.
The health conditions included in the analysis were low-survival cancers, chronic ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and degenerative neurological disease.
The diagnosis of any of these conditions significantly increased the risk for suicide compared with controls. The highest risk appeared within 6 months of a diagnosis or first treatment, but the increased risk persisted at 1 year.
The suicide rate among low-survival cancer patients was 16.6 per 100,000 patients, compared with 5.7 per 100,000 controls; at 1 year, these rates were 21.6 and 9.5 per 100,000 patients and controls, respectively.
For COPD patients, the suicide rate at 6 months after diagnosis was 13.7 per 100,000 patients versus 5.6 per 100,000 matched controls; the suicide rates at 1 year were 22.4 per 100,000 patients and 10.6 per 100,000 matched controls.
The suicide rate at 6 months for individuals diagnosed with chronic ischemic heart disease was 11.0 per 100,000 patients and 4.2 per 100,000 matched controls; at 1 year, the suicide rates were 16.1 per 100,000 patients and 8.8 per 100,000 matched controls.
The 1-year suicide rate was especially high among patients with degenerative neurological conditions (114.5 per 100,000 patients); however, the estimate was considered imprecise because of the rarity of these diseases and subsequent low number of suicides, the researchers noted.
The results support data from previous studies showing links between increased risk of suicide and severe physical conditions, the researchers wrote. Patterns of suicide were similar between men and women and after adjusting for sociodemographic factors.
The findings were limited by the inability to fully control for a history of depression or self-harm, and by the imprecise estimates given the rare occurrence of suicide overall, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the late registration of deaths from external causes and the focus only on suicides that occurred in England and Wales, meaning that individuals who traveled abroad for assisted suicide were not captured in the dataset.
“Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the elevated risk of suicide and help provide the best support to these patients,” the researchers concluded.
However, the current results enhance the literature with a large, population-based review of the elevated suicide risk among individuals newly diagnosed with severe health conditions, and reflect the need for better support for these patients to help with coping, they said.
The study was funded by the Office for National Statistics. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
Individuals diagnosed with a severe physical health condition were significantly more likely to commit suicide at 6 months and at 1 year later, based on data from more than 47 million individuals in a national database.
Previous smaller studies have shown a link between increased risk for suicide and a range of health conditions including cancer, coronary heart disease, neurologic conditions, diabetes, and osteoporosis, Vahé Nafilyan, PhD, of the Office for National Statistics, Newport, England, and colleagues wrote.
However, large-scale population-level studies of the association between specific diagnoses and suicide are lacking, they said.
In a study published in The Lancet Regional Health–Europe, the researchers reviewed a dataset that combined the 2011 Census, death registration records, and the Hospital Episode Statistics. The study population included 47,354,696 individuals aged 6 years and older living in England in 2017. The mean age of the study population was 39.6 years, and 52% were female. The researchers examined deaths that occurred between Jan. 1, 2017, and Dec. 31, 2021.
The health conditions included in the analysis were low-survival cancers, chronic ischemic heart disease, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and degenerative neurological disease.
The diagnosis of any of these conditions significantly increased the risk for suicide compared with controls. The highest risk appeared within 6 months of a diagnosis or first treatment, but the increased risk persisted at 1 year.
The suicide rate among low-survival cancer patients was 16.6 per 100,000 patients, compared with 5.7 per 100,000 controls; at 1 year, these rates were 21.6 and 9.5 per 100,000 patients and controls, respectively.
For COPD patients, the suicide rate at 6 months after diagnosis was 13.7 per 100,000 patients versus 5.6 per 100,000 matched controls; the suicide rates at 1 year were 22.4 per 100,000 patients and 10.6 per 100,000 matched controls.
The suicide rate at 6 months for individuals diagnosed with chronic ischemic heart disease was 11.0 per 100,000 patients and 4.2 per 100,000 matched controls; at 1 year, the suicide rates were 16.1 per 100,000 patients and 8.8 per 100,000 matched controls.
The 1-year suicide rate was especially high among patients with degenerative neurological conditions (114.5 per 100,000 patients); however, the estimate was considered imprecise because of the rarity of these diseases and subsequent low number of suicides, the researchers noted.
The results support data from previous studies showing links between increased risk of suicide and severe physical conditions, the researchers wrote. Patterns of suicide were similar between men and women and after adjusting for sociodemographic factors.
The findings were limited by the inability to fully control for a history of depression or self-harm, and by the imprecise estimates given the rare occurrence of suicide overall, the researchers noted. Other limitations included the late registration of deaths from external causes and the focus only on suicides that occurred in England and Wales, meaning that individuals who traveled abroad for assisted suicide were not captured in the dataset.
“Further research is needed to understand the mechanisms driving the elevated risk of suicide and help provide the best support to these patients,” the researchers concluded.
However, the current results enhance the literature with a large, population-based review of the elevated suicide risk among individuals newly diagnosed with severe health conditions, and reflect the need for better support for these patients to help with coping, they said.
The study was funded by the Office for National Statistics. The researchers reported no relevant financial relationships.
A version of this article originally appeared on Medscape.com.
FROM THE LANCET REGIONAL HEALTH–EUROPE
The longevity gene: Healthy mutant reverses heart aging
Everybody wants a younger heart
As more people live well past 90, scientists have been taking a closer look at how they’ve been doing it. Mostly it boiled down to genetics. You either had it or you didn’t. Well, a recent study suggests that doesn’t have to be true anymore, at least for the heart.
Scientists from the United Kingdom and Italy found an antiaging gene in some centenarians that has shown possible antiaging effects in mice and in human heart cells. A single administration of the mutant antiaging gene, they found, stopped heart function decay in middle-aged mice and even reversed the biological clock by the human equivalent of 10 years in elderly mice.
When the researchers applied the antiaging gene to samples of human heart cells from elderly people with heart problems, the cells “resumed functioning properly, proving to be more efficient in building new blood vessels,” they said in a written statement. It all kind of sounds like something out of Dr. Frankenstein’s lab.
I want to believe … in better sleep
The “X-Files” theme song plays. Mulder and Scully are sitting in a diner, breakfast laid out around them. The diner is quiet, with only a few people inside.
Mulder: I’m telling you, Scully, there’s something spooky going on here.
Scully: You mean other than the fact that this town in Georgia looks suspiciously like Vancouver?
Mulder: Not one person we spoke to yesterday has gotten a full night’s sleep since the UFO sighting last month. I’m telling you, they’re here, they’re experimenting.
Scully: Do you really want me to do this to you again?
Mulder: Do what again?
Scully: There’s nothing going on here that can’t be explained by the current research. Why, in January 2023 a study was published revealing a link between poor sleep and belief in paranormal phenomena like UFOS, demons, or ghosts. Which probably explains why you’re on your third cup of coffee for the morning.
Mulder: Scully, you’ve literally been abducted by aliens. Do we have to play this game every time?
Scully: Look, it’s simple. In a sample of nearly 9,000 people, nearly two-thirds of those who reported experiencing sleep paralysis or exploding head syndrome reported believing in UFOs and aliens walking amongst humanity, despite making up just 3% of the overall sample.
Furthermore, about 60% of those reporting sleep paralysis also reported believing near-death experiences prove the soul lingers on after death, and those with stronger insomnia symptoms were more likely to believe in the devil.
Mulder: Aha!
Scully: Aha what?
Mulder: You’re a devout Christian. You believe in the devil and the soul.
Scully: Yes, but I don’t let it interfere with a good night’s sleep, Mulder. These people saw something strange, convinced themselves it was a UFO, and now they can’t sleep. It’s a vicious cycle. The study authors even said that people experiencing strange nighttime phenomena could interpret this as evidence of aliens or other paranormal beings, thus making them even more susceptible to further sleep disruption and deepening beliefs. Look who I’m talking to.
Mulder: Always with the facts, eh?
Scully: I am a doctor, after all. And if you want more research into how paranormal belief and poor sleep quality are linked, I’d be happy to dig out the literature, because the truth is out there, Mulder.
Mulder: I hate you sometimes.
It’s ChatGPT’s world. We’re just living in it
Have you heard about ChatGPT? The artificial intelligence chatbot was just launched in November and it’s already more important to the Internet than either Vladimir Putin or “Rick and Morty.”
What’s that? You’re wondering why you should care? Well, excuuuuuse us, but we thought you might want to know that ChatGPT is in the process of taking over the world. Let’s take a quick look at what it’s been up to.
“ChatGPT bot passes law school exam”
“ChatGPT passes MBA exam given by a Wharton professor”
“A freelance writer says ChatGPT wrote a $600 article in just 30 seconds”
And here’s one that might be of interest to those of the health care persuasion: “ChatGPT can pass part of the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam.” See? It’s coming for you, too.
The artificial intelligence known as ChatGPT “performed at >50% accuracy across [the three USMLE] examinations, exceeding 60% in most analyses,” a group of researchers wrote on the preprint server medRxiv, noting that 60% is usually the pass threshold for humans taking the exam in any given year.
ChatGPT was not given any special medical training before the exam, but the investigators pointed out that another AI, PubMedGPT, which is trained exclusively on biomedical domain literature, was only 50.8% accurate on the USMLE. Its reliance on “ongoing academic discourse that tends to be inconclusive, contradictory, or highly conservative or noncommittal in its language” was its undoing, the team suggested.
To top it off, ChatGPT is listed as one of the authors at the top of the medRxiv report, with an acknowledgment at the end saying that “ChatGPT contributed to the writing of several sections of this manuscript.”
We’ve said it before, and no doubt we’ll say it again: We’re doomed.
Everybody wants a younger heart
As more people live well past 90, scientists have been taking a closer look at how they’ve been doing it. Mostly it boiled down to genetics. You either had it or you didn’t. Well, a recent study suggests that doesn’t have to be true anymore, at least for the heart.
Scientists from the United Kingdom and Italy found an antiaging gene in some centenarians that has shown possible antiaging effects in mice and in human heart cells. A single administration of the mutant antiaging gene, they found, stopped heart function decay in middle-aged mice and even reversed the biological clock by the human equivalent of 10 years in elderly mice.
When the researchers applied the antiaging gene to samples of human heart cells from elderly people with heart problems, the cells “resumed functioning properly, proving to be more efficient in building new blood vessels,” they said in a written statement. It all kind of sounds like something out of Dr. Frankenstein’s lab.
I want to believe … in better sleep
The “X-Files” theme song plays. Mulder and Scully are sitting in a diner, breakfast laid out around them. The diner is quiet, with only a few people inside.
Mulder: I’m telling you, Scully, there’s something spooky going on here.
Scully: You mean other than the fact that this town in Georgia looks suspiciously like Vancouver?
Mulder: Not one person we spoke to yesterday has gotten a full night’s sleep since the UFO sighting last month. I’m telling you, they’re here, they’re experimenting.
Scully: Do you really want me to do this to you again?
Mulder: Do what again?
Scully: There’s nothing going on here that can’t be explained by the current research. Why, in January 2023 a study was published revealing a link between poor sleep and belief in paranormal phenomena like UFOS, demons, or ghosts. Which probably explains why you’re on your third cup of coffee for the morning.
Mulder: Scully, you’ve literally been abducted by aliens. Do we have to play this game every time?
Scully: Look, it’s simple. In a sample of nearly 9,000 people, nearly two-thirds of those who reported experiencing sleep paralysis or exploding head syndrome reported believing in UFOs and aliens walking amongst humanity, despite making up just 3% of the overall sample.
Furthermore, about 60% of those reporting sleep paralysis also reported believing near-death experiences prove the soul lingers on after death, and those with stronger insomnia symptoms were more likely to believe in the devil.
Mulder: Aha!
Scully: Aha what?
Mulder: You’re a devout Christian. You believe in the devil and the soul.
Scully: Yes, but I don’t let it interfere with a good night’s sleep, Mulder. These people saw something strange, convinced themselves it was a UFO, and now they can’t sleep. It’s a vicious cycle. The study authors even said that people experiencing strange nighttime phenomena could interpret this as evidence of aliens or other paranormal beings, thus making them even more susceptible to further sleep disruption and deepening beliefs. Look who I’m talking to.
Mulder: Always with the facts, eh?
Scully: I am a doctor, after all. And if you want more research into how paranormal belief and poor sleep quality are linked, I’d be happy to dig out the literature, because the truth is out there, Mulder.
Mulder: I hate you sometimes.
It’s ChatGPT’s world. We’re just living in it
Have you heard about ChatGPT? The artificial intelligence chatbot was just launched in November and it’s already more important to the Internet than either Vladimir Putin or “Rick and Morty.”
What’s that? You’re wondering why you should care? Well, excuuuuuse us, but we thought you might want to know that ChatGPT is in the process of taking over the world. Let’s take a quick look at what it’s been up to.
“ChatGPT bot passes law school exam”
“ChatGPT passes MBA exam given by a Wharton professor”
“A freelance writer says ChatGPT wrote a $600 article in just 30 seconds”
And here’s one that might be of interest to those of the health care persuasion: “ChatGPT can pass part of the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam.” See? It’s coming for you, too.
The artificial intelligence known as ChatGPT “performed at >50% accuracy across [the three USMLE] examinations, exceeding 60% in most analyses,” a group of researchers wrote on the preprint server medRxiv, noting that 60% is usually the pass threshold for humans taking the exam in any given year.
ChatGPT was not given any special medical training before the exam, but the investigators pointed out that another AI, PubMedGPT, which is trained exclusively on biomedical domain literature, was only 50.8% accurate on the USMLE. Its reliance on “ongoing academic discourse that tends to be inconclusive, contradictory, or highly conservative or noncommittal in its language” was its undoing, the team suggested.
To top it off, ChatGPT is listed as one of the authors at the top of the medRxiv report, with an acknowledgment at the end saying that “ChatGPT contributed to the writing of several sections of this manuscript.”
We’ve said it before, and no doubt we’ll say it again: We’re doomed.
Everybody wants a younger heart
As more people live well past 90, scientists have been taking a closer look at how they’ve been doing it. Mostly it boiled down to genetics. You either had it or you didn’t. Well, a recent study suggests that doesn’t have to be true anymore, at least for the heart.
Scientists from the United Kingdom and Italy found an antiaging gene in some centenarians that has shown possible antiaging effects in mice and in human heart cells. A single administration of the mutant antiaging gene, they found, stopped heart function decay in middle-aged mice and even reversed the biological clock by the human equivalent of 10 years in elderly mice.
When the researchers applied the antiaging gene to samples of human heart cells from elderly people with heart problems, the cells “resumed functioning properly, proving to be more efficient in building new blood vessels,” they said in a written statement. It all kind of sounds like something out of Dr. Frankenstein’s lab.
I want to believe … in better sleep
The “X-Files” theme song plays. Mulder and Scully are sitting in a diner, breakfast laid out around them. The diner is quiet, with only a few people inside.
Mulder: I’m telling you, Scully, there’s something spooky going on here.
Scully: You mean other than the fact that this town in Georgia looks suspiciously like Vancouver?
Mulder: Not one person we spoke to yesterday has gotten a full night’s sleep since the UFO sighting last month. I’m telling you, they’re here, they’re experimenting.
Scully: Do you really want me to do this to you again?
Mulder: Do what again?
Scully: There’s nothing going on here that can’t be explained by the current research. Why, in January 2023 a study was published revealing a link between poor sleep and belief in paranormal phenomena like UFOS, demons, or ghosts. Which probably explains why you’re on your third cup of coffee for the morning.
Mulder: Scully, you’ve literally been abducted by aliens. Do we have to play this game every time?
Scully: Look, it’s simple. In a sample of nearly 9,000 people, nearly two-thirds of those who reported experiencing sleep paralysis or exploding head syndrome reported believing in UFOs and aliens walking amongst humanity, despite making up just 3% of the overall sample.
Furthermore, about 60% of those reporting sleep paralysis also reported believing near-death experiences prove the soul lingers on after death, and those with stronger insomnia symptoms were more likely to believe in the devil.
Mulder: Aha!
Scully: Aha what?
Mulder: You’re a devout Christian. You believe in the devil and the soul.
Scully: Yes, but I don’t let it interfere with a good night’s sleep, Mulder. These people saw something strange, convinced themselves it was a UFO, and now they can’t sleep. It’s a vicious cycle. The study authors even said that people experiencing strange nighttime phenomena could interpret this as evidence of aliens or other paranormal beings, thus making them even more susceptible to further sleep disruption and deepening beliefs. Look who I’m talking to.
Mulder: Always with the facts, eh?
Scully: I am a doctor, after all. And if you want more research into how paranormal belief and poor sleep quality are linked, I’d be happy to dig out the literature, because the truth is out there, Mulder.
Mulder: I hate you sometimes.
It’s ChatGPT’s world. We’re just living in it
Have you heard about ChatGPT? The artificial intelligence chatbot was just launched in November and it’s already more important to the Internet than either Vladimir Putin or “Rick and Morty.”
What’s that? You’re wondering why you should care? Well, excuuuuuse us, but we thought you might want to know that ChatGPT is in the process of taking over the world. Let’s take a quick look at what it’s been up to.
“ChatGPT bot passes law school exam”
“ChatGPT passes MBA exam given by a Wharton professor”
“A freelance writer says ChatGPT wrote a $600 article in just 30 seconds”
And here’s one that might be of interest to those of the health care persuasion: “ChatGPT can pass part of the U.S. Medical Licensing Exam.” See? It’s coming for you, too.
The artificial intelligence known as ChatGPT “performed at >50% accuracy across [the three USMLE] examinations, exceeding 60% in most analyses,” a group of researchers wrote on the preprint server medRxiv, noting that 60% is usually the pass threshold for humans taking the exam in any given year.
ChatGPT was not given any special medical training before the exam, but the investigators pointed out that another AI, PubMedGPT, which is trained exclusively on biomedical domain literature, was only 50.8% accurate on the USMLE. Its reliance on “ongoing academic discourse that tends to be inconclusive, contradictory, or highly conservative or noncommittal in its language” was its undoing, the team suggested.
To top it off, ChatGPT is listed as one of the authors at the top of the medRxiv report, with an acknowledgment at the end saying that “ChatGPT contributed to the writing of several sections of this manuscript.”
We’ve said it before, and no doubt we’ll say it again: We’re doomed.