Metformin for weight control in pediatric patients on atypical antipsychotic medication

OBJECTIVE: Metformin was assessed as an interventional medication for weight gain in children and adolescents taking atypical antipsychotic agents. METHOD: A 12-week open-label trial was conducted to evaluate metformin\u27s effectiveness and safety for weight management. Eleven subjects, ages 10-18 years, participated in the study. Each subject received metformin orally up to 2000 mg/day. Primary outcome measures included weight, body mass index (BMI), and waist circumference. Secondary outcome measures included serum glucose, insulin, and fasting lipid profile. Changes in weight, BMI, waist, and metabolic profile were obtained by using repeated measures of covariance. RESULTS: The mean reduction in weight, waist, BMI, serum glucose, and serum insulin was not statistically significant. However, 5 out of 11 patients lost weight (mean, -2.82 kg +/- 7.25), and overall the sample did not continue to gain weight. There was a significant decrease in triglyceride levels. Metformin was fairly well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Preliminary data suggests that metformin may safely and effectively improve the triglyceride profile. However, contrary to study hypotheses, weight, waist, and BMI reduction were not statistically significant. Future double-blind studies with larger sample sizes and of longer duration are warranted to assess more fully the safety and efficacy of this intervention

Data Sharing in Neuroimaging Research

Significant resources around the world have been invested in neuroimaging studies of brain function and disease. Easier access to this large body of work should have profound impact on research in cognitive neuroscience and psychiatry, leading to advances in the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric and neurological disease. A trend toward increased sharing of neuroimaging data has emerged in recent years. Nevertheless, a number of barriers continue to impede momentum. Many researchers and institutions remain uncertain about how to share data or lack the tools and expertise to participate in data sharing. The use of electronic data capture (EDC) methods for neuroimaging greatly simplifies the task of data collection and has the potential to help standardize many aspects of data sharing. We review here the motivations for sharing neuroimaging data, the current data sharing landscape, and the sociological or technical barriers that still need to be addressed. The INCF Task Force on Neuroimaging Datasharing, in conjunction with several collaborative groups around the world, has started work on several tools to ease and eventually automate the practice of data sharing. It is hoped that such tools will allow researchers to easily share raw, processed, and derived neuroimaging data, with appropriate metadata and provenance records, and will improve the reproducibility of neuroimaging studies. By providing seamless integration of data sharing and analysis tools within a commodity research environment, the Task Force seeks to identify and minimize barriers to data sharing in the field of neuroimaging

Association of a Simplified Finnegan Neonatal Abstinence Scoring Tool With the Need for Pharmacologic Treatment for Neonatal Abstinence Syndrome

Importance: Observer-rated scales, such as the Finnegan Neonatal Abstinence Scoring Tool (FNAST), are used to quantify the severity of neonatal abstinence syndrome (NAS) and guide pharmacologic therapy. The FNAST, a comprehensive 21-item assessment tool, was developed for research and subsequently integrated into clinical practice; a simpler tool, designed to account for clinically meaningful outcomes, is urgently needed to standardize assessment. Objectives: To identify FNAST items independently associated with the decision to use pharmacologic therapy and to simplify the FNAST while minimizing loss of information for the treatment decision. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multisite cohort study included 424 neonates with opioid exposure who had a gestational age of at least 36 weeks with follow-up from birth to hospital discharge in the derivation cohort and 109 neonates with opioid exposure from the Maternal Opioid Treatment: Human Experimental Research Study in the validation cohort. Neonates in the derivation cohort were included in a medical record review at the Universities of Louisville and Kentucky or in a randomized clinical trial and observational study conducted at Tufts University (2014-2018); the Maternal Opioid Treatment: Human Experimental Research was conducted from 2005 to 2008. Data analysis was conducted from May 2017 to August 2019. Exposures: Prenatal opioid exposure. Main Outcomes and Measures: All FNAST items were dichotomized as present or not present, and logistic regression was used to identify binary items independently associated with pharmacologic treatment. The final model was validated with an independent cohort of neonates with opioid exposure. Results: Among 424 neonates (gestational age, ≥36 weeks; 217 [51%] female infants), convulsions were not observed, and high-pitched cry and hyperactive Moro reflex had extremely different frequencies across cohorts. Therefore, these 3 FNAST items were removed from further analysis. The 2 tremor items were combined, and 8 of the remaining 17 items were independently associated with pharmacologic treatment, with an area under the curve of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.82-0.89) compared with 0.90 (95% CI, 0.87-0.94) for the 21-item FNAST. External validation of the 8 items resulted in an area under the curve of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.79-0.93). Thresholds of 4 and 5 on the simplified scale yielded the closest agreement with FNAST thresholds of 8 and 12 (weighted κ = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.48-0.61). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this study suggest that 8 signs of NAS may be sufficient to assess whether a neonate meets criteria for pharmacologic therapy. A focus on these signs could simplify the FNAST tool and may enhance its clinical utility

Data sharing in neuroimaging research

Significant resources around the world have been invested in neuroimaging studies of brain function and disease. Easier access to this large body of work should have profound impact on research in cognitive neuroscience and psychiatry, leading to advances in the diagnosis and treatment of psychiatric and neurological disease. A trend toward increased sharing of neuroimaging data has emerged in recent years. Nevertheless, a number of barriers continue to impede momentum. Many researchers and institutions remain uncertain about how to share data or lack the tools and expertise to participate in data sharing. The use of electronic data capture (EDC) methods for neuroimaging greatly simplifies the task of data collection and has the potential to help standardize many aspects of data sharing. We review here the motivations for sharing neuroimaging data, the current data sharing landscape, and the sociological or technical barriers that still need to be addressed. The INCF Task Force on Neuroimaging Datasharing, in conjunction with several collaborative groups around the world, has started work on several tools to ease and eventually automate the practice of data sharing. It is hoped that such tools will allow researchers to easily share raw, processed, and derived neuroimaging data, with appropriate metadata and provenance records, and will improve the reproducibility of neuroimaging studies. By providing seamless integration of data sharing and analysis tools within a commodity research environment, the Task Force seeks to identify and minimize barriers to data sharing in the field of neuroimaging

Data sharing and publishing in the field of neuroimaging

Abstract There is growing recognition of the importance of data sharing in the neurosciences, and in particular in the field of neuroimaging research, in order to best make use of the volumes of human subject data that have been acquired to date. However, a number of barriers, both practical and cultural, continue to impede the widespread practice of data sharing; these include: lack of standard infrastructure and tools for data sharing, uncertainty about how to organize and prepare the data for sharing, and researchers’ fears about unattributed data use or missed opportunities for publication. A further challenge is how the scientific community should best describe and/or reference shared data that is used in secondary analyses. Finally, issues of human research subject protections and the ethical use of such data are an ongoing source of concern for neuroimaging researchers. One crucial issue is how producers of shared data can and should be acknowledged and how this important component of science will benefit individuals in their academic careers. While we encourage the field to make use of these opportunities for data publishing, it is critical that standards for metadata, provenance, and other descriptors are used. This commentary outlines the efforts of the International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility Task Force on Neuroimaging Datasharing to coordinate and establish such standards, as well as potential ways forward to relieve the issues that researchers who produce these massive, reusable community resources face when making the data rapidly and freely available to the public. Both the technical and human aspects of data sharing must be addressed if we are to go forward.</p

Data sharing and publishing in the field of neuroimaging

There is growing recognition of the importance of data sharing in the neurosciences, and in particular in the field of neuroimaging research, in order to best make use of the volumes of human subject data that have been acquired to date. However, a number of barriers, both practical and cultural, continue to impede the widespread practice of data sharing; these include: lack of standard infrastructure and tools for data sharing, uncertainty about how to organize and prepare the data for sharing, and researchers’ fears about unattributed data use or missed opportunities for publication. A further challenge is how the scientific community should best describe and/or reference shared data that is used in secondary analyses. Finally, issues of human research subject protections and the ethical use of such data are an ongoing source of concern for neuroimaging researchers. One crucial issue is how producers of shared data can and should be acknowledged and how this important component of science will benefit individuals in their academic careers. While we encourage the field to make use of these opportunities for data publishing, it is critical that standards for metadata, provenance, and other descriptors are used. This commentary outlines the efforts of the International Neuroinformatics Coordinating Facility Task Force on Neuroimaging Datasharing to coordinate and establish such standards, as well as potential ways forward to relieve the issues that researchers who produce these massive, reusable community resources face when making the data rapidly and freely available to the public. Both the technical and human aspects of data sharing must be addressed if we are to go forward

Longitudinal Analysis of Gender Differences in Academic Productivity Among Medical Faculty Across 24 Medical Schools in the United States

PurposeTo examine gender differences in academic productivity, as indicated by publications and federal grant funding acquisition, among a longitudinal cohort of medical faculty from 24 U.S. medical schools, 1995 to 2012-2013.MethodData for this research were taken from the National Faculty Survey involving a survey with medical faculty recruited from medical schools in 1995, and followed up in 2012-2013. Data included surveys and publication and grant funding databases. Outcomes were number of publications, h-index, and principal investigator on a federal grant in the prior two years. Gender differences were assessed using negative binomial regression models for publication and h-index outcomes, and logistic regression for the grant funding outcome; analyses adjusted for race/ethnicity, rank, specialty area, and years since first academic appointment.ResultsData were available for 1,244 of the 1,275 (98%) subjects eligible for the follow-up study. Men were significantly more likely than women to be married/partnered, have children, and hold the rank of professor (P &lt; .0001). Adjusted regression models documented that women had a lower rate of publication (relative number = 0.71; 95% CI = 0.63, 0.81; P &lt; .0001) and h-index (relative number = 0.81; 95% CI = 0.73, 0.90; P &lt; .0001) relative to men, but there was no gender difference in grant funding.ConclusionsWomen faculty acquired federal funding at similar rates as male faculty, yet lagged behind in terms of publications and their impact. Medical academia must consider how to help address ongoing gender disparities in publication records

Obstetrics-gynecology resident long-acting reversible contraception training: the role of resident and program characteristics

Background: Obstetrics-gynecology residents should graduate with competence in comprehensive contraceptive care, including long-acting reversible contraception. Lack of hands-on training and deficits in provider education are barriers to long-acting reversible contraception access. Identifying the number of long-acting reversible contraception insertions performed by obstetrics-gynecology residents could provide insight into the depth and breadth of long-acting reversible contraception training available to obstetrics-gynecology residents in Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education-accredited residency programs. Objective: Our study investigates long-acting reversible contraception-specific training in obstetrics-gynecology residency programs across the United States, including the self-reported number of long-acting reversible contraception insertions per resident and the impact of resident demographic characteristics and residency program characteristics on training. Study design: Obstetrics-gynecology residents completed a voluntary electronic survey during the 2016 Council on Resident Education in Obstetrics and Gynecology examination. The survey included resident demographic characteristics and residency program characteristics as well as resident education and training in long-acting reversible contraception (number of intrauterine devices and implants inserted, training in immediate postpartum intrauterine device placement). A binary long-acting reversible contraception insertion experience variable dichotomized respondents as having a low level of long-acting reversible contraception insertions (0 implants and/or 10 or fewer intrauterine devices ) or a high level of long-acting reversible contraception insertions (1 or more implants and/or 11 or more intrauterine devices). χ2 tests were used to compare the presence of long-acting reversible contraception insertion experience by postgraduate year, resident demographic characteristics, and residency program characteristics. Adjusted logistic regression was performed to ascertain the independent effects of gender, race/ethnicity (non-Hispanic white vs other), residency program type (university vs community), and residency program geographic region on the likelihood of low overall long-acting reversible contraception insertion experience. Results: In total, 5055 obstetrics-gynecology residents completed the survey (85%); analysis included only residents in United States obstetrics-gynecology programs (N=4322). Of the total analytic sample, 1777 (41.2%) had low long-acting reversible contraception insertion experience. As expected, the number of intrauterine device insertions, implant insertions, and overall long-acting reversible contraception experience increased as residents progressed through training. Long-acting reversible contraception insertion experience varied by residency program geographic region: 169 (27.1%) residents in programs in the West had low long-acting reversible contraception insertion experience compared with 498 (39.0%) in the South, 473 (45.3%) in the Midwest, and 615 (46.0%) in the Northeast. Only 152 (14.9%) of all postgraduate year 4 residents had low long-acting reversible contraception insertion experience. Among postgraduate year 4 residents, low long-acting reversible contraception insertion experience was significantly associated racial/ethnic minority status and community-based residency program type (compared with university-based). Postgraduate year 4 residents in programs located in the Northeast and Midwest had 4.25 (95% confidence interval, 2.04-8.85) and 2.75 (95% confidence interval, 1.27-5.97) times the odds of low long-acting reversible contraception experience compared with those in residency programs in the West, even after adjusting for other respondent characteristics and other residency program characteristics. Conclusion: Obstetrics-gynecology residents experience a range of long-acting reversible contraception training and insertions, which differed according to resident race/ethnicity and residency program characteristics (program type and geographic region). Residency programs with low long-acting reversible contraception training experience should consider opportunities to improve competence in this fundamental obstetrics-gynecology skill

Inequities in Academic Compensation by Gender

PurposeCross-sectional studies have demonstrated gender differences in salaries within academic medicine. No research has assessed longitudinal compensation patterns. This study sought to assess longitudinal patterns by gender in compensation, and to understand factors associated with these differences in a longitudinal cohort.MethodA 17-year longitudinal follow-up of the National Faculty Survey was conducted with a random sample of faculty from 24 U.S. medical schools. Participants employed full-time at initial and follow-up time periods completed the survey. Annual pretax compensation during academic year 2012-2013 was compared by gender. Covariates assessed included race/ethnicity; years since first academic appointment; retention in academic career; academic rank; departmental affiliation; percent effort distribution across clinical, teaching, administrative, and research duties; marital and parental status; and any leave or part-time status in the years between surveys.ResultsIn unadjusted analyses, women earned a mean of $20,520 less than men (P = .03); women made 90 cents for every dollar earned by their male counterparts. This difference was reduced to$16,982 (P = .04) after adjusting for covariates. The mean difference of $15,159 was no longer significant (P = .06) when adjusting covariates and for those who had ever taken a leave or worked part-time.ConclusionsThe continued gender gap in compensation cannot be accounted for by metrics used to calculate salary. Institutional actions to address these disparities include both initial appointment and annual salary equity reviews, training of senior faculty and administrators to understand implicit bias, and training of women faculty in negotiating skills