Integration of “omics” Data and Phenotypic Data Within a Unified Extensible Multimodal Framework

Analysis of “omics” data is often a long and segmented process, encompassing multiple stages from initial data collection to processing, quality control and visualization. The cross-modal nature of recent genomic analyses renders this process challenging to both automate and standardize; consequently, users often resort to manual interventions that compromise data reliability and reproducibility. This in turn can produce multiple versions of datasets across storage systems. As a result, scientists can lose significant time and resources trying to execute and monitor their analytical workflows and encounter difficulties sharing versioned data. In 2015, the Ludmer Centre for Neuroinformatics and Mental Health at McGill University brought together expertise from the Douglas Mental Health University Institute, the Lady Davis Institute and the Montreal Neurological Institute (MNI) to form a genetics/epigenetics working group. The objectives of this working group are to: (i) design an automated and seamless process for (epi)genetic data that consolidates heterogeneous datasets into the LORIS open-source data platform; (ii) streamline data analysis; (iii) integrate results with provenance information; and (iv) facilitate structured and versioned sharing of pipelines for optimized reproducibility using high-performance computing (HPC) environments via the CBRAIN processing portal. This article outlines the resulting generalizable “omics” framework and its benefits, specifically, the ability to: (i) integrate multiple types of biological and multi-modal datasets (imaging, clinical, demographics and behavioral); (ii) automate the process of launching analysis pipelines on HPC platforms; (iii) remove the bioinformatic barriers that are inherent to this process; (iv) ensure standardization and transparent sharing of processing pipelines to improve computational consistency; (v) store results in a queryable web interface; (vi) offer visualization tools to better view the data; and (vii) provide the mechanisms to ensure usability and reproducibility. This framework for workflows facilitates brain research discovery by reducing human error through automation of analysis pipelines and seamless linking of multimodal data, allowing investigators to focus on research instead of data handling

Vermont Primary Care Provider Knowledge and Attitudes Regarding Psychedelics

Background: Psychedelics, such as MDMA, LSD, psilocybin, and ketamine, are mind-manifesting substances that have gained interest among academic, research, and policy stakeholders due to their potential as therapeutic agents for intractable mental health disorders. Furthermore, policy continues to develop as evidenced by the recent legalization of psilocybin in Oregon state, therapeutic legalization of psilocybin in Colorado, and impending FDA approval of MDMA therapy for PTSD. Psilocybin law is currently receiving new scrutiny in the Vermont legislature. In the context of a mounting “mental health crisis” and with gaps in the efficacy of currently available treatments for PTSD, depression, and end of life care, the objective of this study was to understand Vermont primary care providers’ knowledge and attitudes towards psychedelics. Methods: We developed a survey with 25 Likert scale items and 2 open-ended questions. The survey design was informed by a series of qualitative interviews from a previous study. The survey was distributed to all primary care providers practicing in Vermont. Survey data were analyzed utilizing descriptive statistics; free text responses were reviewed and thematically organized. Results: The response rate was 132/768 (17%). Respondents had a median age of 48 years (range 28-77) and 70% identified as women. Professional role was 61% MD/DO, 33% APRN/PA, and 6% ND; 66% practiced Family Medicine. Regarding knowledge, 42% of participants accurately identified the regulatory status for MDMA, 60% for LSD, 47% for psilocybin, and 67% for ketamine; 77% were interested in receiving education regarding psychedelics. While 71% were moderately/very concerned about youth use and 61% about road safety, only 17% were moderately/very concerned that psychedelics were inherently deleterious to one’s health. Over half agreed/strongly agreed that psychedelics have high therapeutic potential, with 40% neutral, and 4% disagreeing. Respondents expressed caution for increasing availability of psychedelics without further research. Findings may be limited by potential non-response bias, though the demographic characteristics of the non-responders were similar to the responders. Conclusion: Vermont primary care providers have knowledge gaps regarding the trajectory of psychedelic substances, and most are interested in further education. Although providers have specific concerns about safety, there is optimism that these substances have therapeutic potential. Research on the benefits and risks was rated as a high priority, with public health concerns outweighing addiction risk, tolerability, and administration. Given the rapidly changing landscape and sweeping legislative changes, bridging the gap between the state of policy and clinician familiarity demands increased educational opportunities