Violent video gaming among French adolescents: Impact on mental health by genderPratique des jeux vidéos violents chez les adolescents français : impact sur la santé mentale selon le genre

International audienceL Encéphale, ParisBackground: Nowadays, video games are very popular among teenagers. This popularity generates concerns, whether in the media, among families or among the scientific community, who wonder about their potential harmful effects. The aim of this study was to assess the association between different types of use of video games (absence of use, use of violent video games, use of non-violent video games) and mental health and aggression. Methods: Data was drawn from a French cross-sectional study entitled u201cPortrait d Adolescentsu201d which included 15,235 adolescents using anonymous self-administered questionnaires. We defined three groups of use of video games (absence of use, use of violent video games, use of non-violent video games) and explored the association with mental health indicators among boys and girls. Results: The group categorized as u201cnon-gamersu201d consisted of 1288 adolescents (8.5%), while the u201cnon-violent video gamersu201d group comprised 8380 adolescents (55.5%) and the u201cviolent video gamersu201d group included 5430 participants (36%). Among adolescent boys, there was no observed association between responses to mental health-related questions and the type of video game playing. However, in the u201cviolent video gamersu201d group, a higher percentage of boys (6.8%) reported engaging in self-harm behaviors (p = 0.001). In contrast, in the u201cnon-violent video gamersu201d group, a lower proportion of boys (9.4%) reported participating in dangerous games (p < 0.0001). For girls, the u201cviolent video gamersu201d group exhibited a higher proportion of responses indicating poorer mental health across all explored items: 22.8% reported a history of suicide attempts (p < 0.0001), 22.3% reported depression (p < 0.0001), 17.8% reported self harm (p < 0.0001), and 11.2% reported participating in dangerous game (p < 0.0001). Conclusion: Violent video games appear to be associated with varying behaviors depending on the gender of adolescents, and notably contribute to much poorer mental health among adolescent girls

Dermatologist-like explainable AI enhances trust and confidence in diagnosing melanoma

Abstract Artificial intelligence (AI) systems have been shown to help dermatologists diagnose melanoma more accurately, however they lack transparency, hindering user acceptance. Explainable AI (XAI) methods can help to increase transparency, yet often lack precise, domain-specific explanations. Moreover, the impact of XAI methods on dermatologists’ decisions has not yet been evaluated. Building upon previous research, we introduce an XAI system that provides precise and domain-specific explanations alongside its differential diagnoses of melanomas and nevi. Through a three-phase study, we assess its impact on dermatologists’ diagnostic accuracy, diagnostic confidence, and trust in the XAI-support. Our results show strong alignment between XAI and dermatologist explanations. We also show that dermatologists’ confidence in their diagnoses, and their trust in the support system significantly increase with XAI compared to conventional AI. This study highlights dermatologists’ willingness to adopt such XAI systems, promoting future use in the clinic

Efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies, sotrovimab and BRII-196 plus BRII-198, for adults hospitalised with COVID-19 (TICO): a randomised controlled trial

We aimed to assess the efficacy and safety of two neutralising monoclonal antibody therapies (sotrovimab [Vir Biotechnology and GlaxoSmithKline] and BRII-196 plus BRII-198 [Brii Biosciences]) for adults admitted to hospital for COVID-19 (hereafter referred to as hospitalised) with COVID-19. In this multinational, double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled, clinical trial (Therapeutics for Inpatients with COVID-19 [TICO]), adults (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 at 43 hospitals in the USA, Denmark, Switzerland, and Poland were recruited. Patients were eligible if they had laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 symptoms for up to 12 days. Using a web-based application, participants were randomly assigned (2:1:2:1), stratified by trial site pharmacy, to sotrovimab 500 mg, matching placebo for sotrovimab, BRII-196 1000 mg plus BRII-198 1000 mg, or matching placebo for BRII-196 plus BRII-198, in addition to standard of care. Each study product was administered as a single dose given intravenously over 60 min. The concurrent placebo groups were pooled for analyses. The primary outcome was time to sustained clinical recovery, defined as discharge from the hospital to home and remaining at home for 14 consecutive days, up to day 90 after randomisation. Interim futility analyses were based on two seven-category ordinal outcome scales on day 5 that measured pulmonary status and extrapulmonary complications of COVID-19. The safety outcome was a composite of death, serious adverse events, incident organ failure, and serious coinfection up to day 90 after randomisation. Efficacy and safety outcomes were assessed in the modified intention-to-treat population, defined as all patients randomly assigned to treatment who started the study infusion. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04501978. Between Dec 16, 2020, and March 1, 2021, 546 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to sotrovimab (n=184), BRII-196 plus BRII-198 (n=183), or placebo (n=179), of whom 536 received part or all of their assigned study drug (sotrovimab n=182, BRII-196 plus BRII-198 n=176, or placebo n=178; median age of 60 years [IQR 50–72], 228 [43%] patients were female and 308 [57%] were male). At this point, enrolment was halted on the basis of the interim futility analysis. At day 5, neither the sotrovimab group nor the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group had significantly higher odds of more favourable outcomes than the placebo group on either the pulmonary scale (adjusted odds ratio sotrovimab 1·07 [95% CI 0·74–1·56]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 0·98 [95% CI 0·67–1·43]) or the pulmonary-plus complications scale (sotrovimab 1·08 [0·74–1·58]; BRII-196 plus BRII-198 1·00 [0·68–1·46]). By day 90, sustained clinical recovery was seen in 151 (85%) patients in the placebo group compared with 160 (88%) in the sotrovimab group (adjusted rate ratio 1·12 [95% CI 0·91–1·37]) and 155 (88%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group (1·08 [0·88–1·32]). The composite safety outcome up to day 90 was met by 48 (27%) patients in the placebo group, 42 (23%) in the sotrovimab group, and 45 (26%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group. 13 (7%) patients in the placebo group, 14 (8%) in the sotrovimab group, and 15 (9%) in the BRII-196 plus BRII-198 group died up to day 90. Neither sotrovimab nor BRII-196 plus BRII-198 showed efficacy for improving clinical outcomes among adults hospitalised with COVID-19. US National Institutes of Health and Operation Warp Spee