Neuromatch Academy: a 3-week, online summer school in computational neuroscience

Neuromatch Academy (https://academy.neuromatch.io; (van Viegen et al., 2021)) was designed as an online summer school to cover the basics of computational neuroscience in three weeks. The materials cover dominant and emerging computational neuroscience tools, how they complement one another, and specifically focus on how they can help us to better understand how the brain functions. An original component of the materials is its focus on modeling choices, i.e. how do we choose the right approach, how do we build models, and how can we evaluate models to determine if they provide real (meaningful) insight. This meta-modeling component of the instructional materials asks what questions can be answered by different techniques, and how to apply them meaningfully to get insight about brain function

Hospital in the home: constructions of the nursing role - a literature review

&bull; Acute medical and nursing treatment in the home is increasingly seen as an alternative to hospitalization. Models such as hospital in the home (HITH) or acute home care are said to provide a safe, comfortable environment for patients that is conducive to healing.&bull; A review of the literature reveals the embryonic nature of the research and discussion related to this alternative care delivery model. In general, the benefits of hospital in the home programmes are presented in an uncritical manner.&bull; Medical practitioners have embraced the move to home care as a means of expanding the use of advanced technologies and improved drug regimes beyond the hospital walls.&bull; The nursing response has been mechanistic and recipe-like while advancing the HITH nursing role as an opportunity for speciality practice by virtue of the increased autonomy and independence required.&bull; This review demonstrates the influence of a professional mandate for specialization, and the ideological and scientific interests that have influenced the role of the nurse.<br /

Long-term effectiveness of dopamine agonists and monoamine oxidase B inhibitors compared with levodopa as initial treatment for Parkinson\u27s disease (PD MED): A large, open-label, pragmatic randomised trial

\ua9 2014 Elsevier Ltd. Background Whether initial treatment for Parkinson\u27s disease should consist of levodopa, dopamine agonists, or monoamine oxidase type B inhibitors (MAOBI) is uncertain. We aimed to establish which of these three classes of drug, as initial treatment, provides the most effective long-term control of symptoms and best quality of life for people with early Parkinson\u27s disease. Methods In this pragmatic, open-label randomised trial, patients newly diagnosed with Parkinson\u27s disease were randomly assigned (by telephone call to a central office; 1:1:1) between levodopa-sparing therapy (dopamine agonists or MAOBI) and levodopa alone. Patients and investigators were not masked to group assignment. Primary outcomes were the mobility dimension on the 39-item patient-rated Parkinson\u27s disease questionnaire (PDQ-39) quality-of-life scale (range 0-100 with six points defined as the minimally important difference) and cost-effectiveness. Analysis was intention to treat. This trial is registered, number ISRCTN69812316. Findings Between Nov 9, 2000, and Dec 22, 2009, 1620 patients were assigned to study groups (528 to levodopa, 632 to dopamine agonist, 460 to MAOBI). With 3-year median follow-up, PDQ-39 mobility scores averaged 1\ub78 points (95% CI 0\ub75-3\ub70, p=0\ub7005) better in patients randomly assigned to levodopa than those assigned to levodopa-sparing therapy, with no increase or attrition of benefit during 7 years\u27 observation. PDQ-39 mobility scores were 1\ub74 points (95% CI 0\ub70-2\ub79, p=0\ub705) better in patients allocated MAOBI than in those allocated dopamine agonists. EQ-5D utility scores averaged 0\ub703 (95% CI 0\ub701-0\ub705; p=0\ub70002) better with levodopa than with levodopa-sparing therapy; rates of dementia (hazard ratio [HR] 0\ub781, 95% CI 0\ub761-1\ub708, p=0\ub714), admissions to institutions (0\ub786, 0\ub763-1\ub718; p=0\ub74), and death (0\ub785, 0\ub769-1\ub706, p=0\ub717) were not significantly different, but the upper CIs precluded any substantial increase with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy. 179 (28%) of 632 patients allocated dopamine agonists and 104 (23%) of 460 patients allocated MAOBI discontinued allocated treatment because of side-effects compared with 11 (2%) of 528 patients allocated levodopa (p&lt;0\ub70001). Interpretation Very small but persistent benefits are shown for patient-rated mobility scores when treatment is initiated with levodopa compared with levodopa-sparing therapy. MAOBI as initial levodopa-sparing therapy was at least as effective as dopamine agonists. Funding UK National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment Programme and UK Department of Health