A comparative study of cranial, blunt trauma fractures as seen at medicolegal autopsy and by Computed Tomography

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Computed Tomography (CT) has become a widely used supplement to medico legal autopsies at several forensic institutes. Amongst other things, it has proven to be very valuable in visualising fractures of the cranium. Also CT scan data are being used to create head models for biomechanical trauma analysis by Finite Element Analysis. If CT scan data are to be used for creating individual head models for retrograde trauma analysis in the future we need to ascertain how well cranial fractures are captured by CT scan. The purpose of this study was to compare the diagnostic agreement between CT and autopsy regarding cranial fractures and especially the precision with which cranial fractures are recorded.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The autopsy fracture diagnosis was compared to the diagnosis of two CT readings (reconstructed with Multiplanar and Maximum Intensity Projection reconstructions) by registering the fractures on schematic drawings. The extent of the fractures was quantified by merging 3-dimensional datasets from both the autopsy as input by 3D digitizer tracing and CT scan.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The results showed a good diagnostic agreement regarding fractures localised in the posterior fossa, while the fracture diagnosis in the medial and anterior fossa was difficult at the first CT scan reading. The fracture diagnosis improved during the second CT scan reading. Thus using two different CT reconstructions improved diagnosis in the medial fossa and at the impact points in the cranial vault. However, fracture diagnosis in the anterior and medial fossa and of hairline fractures in general still remained difficult.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The study showed that the forensically important fracture systems to a large extent were diagnosed on CT images using Multiplanar and Maximum Intensity Projection reconstructions. Difficulties remained in the minute diagnosis of hairline fractures. These inconsistencies need to be resolved in order to use CT scan data of victims for individual head modelling and trauma analysis.</p

Namilumab or infliximab compared with standard of care in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (CATALYST): a randomised, multicentre, multi-arm, multistage, open-label, adaptive, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial

BACKGROUND: Dysregulated inflammation is associated with poor outcomes in COVID-19. We aimed to assess the efficacy of namilumab (a granulocyte-macrophage colony stimulating factor inhibitor) and infliximab (a tumour necrosis factor inhibitor) in hospitalised patients with COVID-19, to prioritise agents for phase 3 trials. METHODS: In this randomised, multicentre, multi-arm, multistage, parallel-group, open-label, adaptive, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial (CATALYST), we recruited patients (aged ≥16 years) admitted to hospital with COVID-19 pneumonia and C-reactive protein (CRP) concentrations of 40 mg/L or greater, at nine hospitals in the UK. Participants were randomly assigned with equal probability to usual care or usual care plus a single intravenous dose of namilumab (150 mg) or infliximab (5 mg/kg). Randomisation was stratified by care location within the hospital (ward vs intensive care unit [ICU]). Patients and investigators were not masked to treatment allocation. The primary endpoint was improvement in inflammation, measured by CRP concentration over time, analysed using Bayesian multilevel models. This trial is now complete and is registered with ISRCTN, 40580903. FINDINGS: Between June 15, 2020, and Feb 18, 2021, we screened 299 patients and 146 were enrolled and randomly assigned to usual care (n=54), namilumab (n=57), or infliximab (n=35). For the primary outcome, 45 patients in the usual care group were compared with 52 in the namilumab group, and 29 in the usual care group were compared with 28 in the infliximab group. The probabilities that the interventions were superior to usual care alone in reducing CRP concentration over time were 97% for namilumab and 15% for infliximab; the point estimates for treatment–time interactions were –0·09 (95% CI –0·19 to 0·00) for namilumab and 0·06 (–0·05 to 0·17) for infliximab. 134 adverse events occurred in 30 (55%) of 55 patients in the namilumab group compared with 145 in 29 (54%) of 54 in the usual care group. 102 adverse events occurred in 20 (69%) of 29 patients in the infliximab group compared with 112 in 17 (50%) of 34 in the usual care group. Death occurred in six (11%) patients in the namilumab group compared with ten (19%) in the usual care group, and in four (14%) in the infliximab group compared with five (15%) in the usual care group. INTERPRETATION: Namilumab, but not infliximab, showed proof-of-concept evidence for reduction in inflammation—as measured by CRP concentration—in hospitalised patients with COVID-19 pneumonia. Namilumab should be prioritised for further investigation in COVID-19. FUNDING: Medical Research Council

Food allergy knowledge, attitudes and beliefs: Focus groups of parents, physicians and the general public

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Food allergy prevalence is increasing in US children. Presently, the primary means of preventing potentially fatal reactions are avoidance of allergens, prompt recognition of food allergy reactions, and knowledge about food allergy reaction treatments. Focus groups were held as a preliminary step in the development of validated survey instruments to assess food allergy knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs of parents, physicians, and the general public.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Eight focus groups were conducted between January and July of 2006 in the Chicago area with parents of children with food allergy (3 groups), physicians (3 groups), and the general public (2 groups). A constant comparative method was used to identify the emerging themes which were then grouped into key domains of food allergy knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Parents of children with food allergy had solid fundamental knowledge but had concerns about primary care physicians' knowledge of food allergy, diagnostic approaches, and treatment practices. The considerable impact of children's food allergies on familial quality of life was articulated. Physicians had good basic knowledge of food allergy but differed in their approach to diagnosis and advice about starting solids and breastfeeding. The general public had wide variation in knowledge about food allergy with many misconceptions of key concepts related to prevalence, definition, and triggers of food allergy.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Appreciable food allergy knowledge gaps exist, especially among physicians and the general public. The quality of life for children with food allergy and their families is significantly affected.</p

Following the genes: a framework for animal modeling of psychiatric disorders

The number of individual cases of psychiatric disorders that can be ascribed to identified, rare, single mutations is increasing with great rapidity. Such mutations can be recapitulated in mice to generate animal models with direct etiological validity. Defining the underlying pathogenic mechanisms will require an experimental and theoretical framework to make the links from mutation to altered behavior in an animal or psychopathology in a human. Here, we discuss key elements of such a framework, including cell type-based phenotyping, developmental trajectories, linking circuit properties at micro and macro scales and definition of neurobiological phenotypes that are directly translatable to humans