Impact of TNF and IL-33 Cytokines on Mast Cells in Neuroinflammation

Mast cells (MCs) are derived from hematopoietic progenitors, mature in vascularized tissues, and participate in innate and acquired immunity. Neuroinflammation is a highly debated topic in the biomedical literature; however, the impact of tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and IL-33 on MCs in the brain has not been widely addressed. MCs can be activated by IgE binding to Fc epsilon RI, as well as by different antigens. After activation, MCs mediate various immunological and inflammatory responses through TNF and IL-33. TNF has two receptors: TNFR1, a p55 molecule, and TNFR2, a p75 molecule. This cytokine is the only one of its kind to be stored in the granules of MCs and can also be generated by de novo synthesis via mRNA. In the central nervous system (CNS), TNF is produced almost exclusively by microglial cells, neurons, astrocytes, and, minimally, by endothelial cells. After its release into brain tissue, TNF rapidly induces the adhesion molecules endothelial leukocyte adhesion molecule 1 (ELAM-1), intercellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1), and vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 (VCAM-1) in endothelial cells. TNF causes the chemoattraction of neutrophils by inducing several molecules, including CXC chemokines (IL-8). Both MCs and microglial cells act as a primary barrier against foreign molecules in the CNS, producing pro-inflammatory cytokines such as IL-33. IL-33 belongs to the IL-1 family, is activated through the ST2L/IL1-RAcP receptor complex, and mediates both the innate and adaptive immune response. IL-33 is a nuclear transcription factor expressed in the brain, where it induces pro-inflammatory cytokines (TNF and IL-1) and chemokines (CCL2, CCL3, CCL5, and CXCL10). Therefore, MCs and microglia in the CNS are a source of pro-inflammatory cytokines, including TNF and IL-33, that mediate many brain diseases. The inhibition of TNF and IL-33 may represent a new therapeutic approach that could complement existing neuroinflammatory therapies

Surgeons' perspectives on artificial intelligence to support clinical decision-making in trauma and emergency contexts: results from an international survey

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is gaining traction in medicine and surgery. AI-based applications can offer tools to examine high-volume data to inform predictive analytics that supports complex decision-making processes. Time-sensitive trauma and emergency contexts are often challenging. The study aims to investigate trauma and emergency surgeons' knowledge and perception of using AI-based tools in clinical decision-making processes. Methods: An online survey grounded on literature regarding AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was advertised to 917 WSES members through the society's website and Twitter profile. Results: 650 surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the survey. Results depict the presence of technology enthusiasts and skeptics and surgeons' preference toward more classical decision-making aids like clinical guidelines, traditional training, and the support of their multidisciplinary colleagues. A lack of knowledge about several AI-related aspects emerges and is associated with mistrust. Discussion: The trauma and emergency surgical community is divided into those who firmly believe in the potential of AI and those who do not understand or trust AI-enabled surgical decision-making aids. Academic societies and surgical training programs should promote a foundational, working knowledge of clinical AI

Time for a paradigm shift in shared decision-making in trauma and emergency surgery? Results from an international survey

Background Shared decision-making (SDM) between clinicians and patients is one of the pillars of the modern patient-centric philosophy of care. This study aims to explore SDM in the discipline of trauma and emergency surgery, investigating its interpretation as well as the barriers and facilitators for its implementation among surgeons. Methods Grounding on the literature on the topics of the understanding, barriers, and facilitators of SDM in trauma and emergency surgery, a survey was created by a multidisciplinary committee and endorsed by the World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES). The survey was sent to all 917 WSES members, advertised through the society’s website, and shared on the society’s Twitter profile. Results A total of 650 trauma and emergency surgeons from 71 countries in five continents participated in the initiative. Less than half of the surgeons understood SDM, and 30% still saw the value in exclusively engaging multidisciplinary provider teams without involving the patient. Several barriers to effectively partnering with the patient in the decision-making process were identified, such as the lack of time and the need to concentrate on making medical teams work smoothly. Discussion Our investigation underlines how only a minority of trauma and emergency surgeons understand SDM, and perhaps, the value of SDM is not fully accepted in trauma and emergency situations. The inclusion of SDM practices in clinical guidelines may represent the most feasible and advocated solutions