The Development of Shared Liking of Representational but not Abstract Art in Primary School Children and Their Justifications for Liking

This Document is Protected by copyright and was first published by Frontiers. All rights reserved. It is reproduced with permissionUnderstanding how aesthetic preferences are shared among individuals, and its developmental time course, is a fundamental question in aesthetics. It has been shown that semantic associations, in response to representational artworks, overlap more strongly among individuals than those generated by abstract artworks and that the emotional valence of the associations also overlaps more for representational artworks. This valence response may be a key driver in aesthetic appreciation. The current study tested predictions derived from the semantic association account in a developmental context. Twenty 4-, 6-, 8- and 10-year-old children (n = 80) were shown 20 artworks (10 representational, 10 abstract) and were asked to rate each artwork and to explain their decision. Cross-observer agreement in aesthetic preferences increased with age from 4–8 years for both abstract and representational art. However, after age 6 the level of shared appreciation for representational and abstract artworks diverged, with significantly higher levels of agreement for representational than abstract artworks at age 8 and 10. The most common justifications for representational artworks involved subject matter, while for abstract artworks formal artistic properties and color were the most commonly used justifications. Representational artwork also showed a significantly higher proportion of associations and emotional responses than abstract artworks. In line with predictions from developmental cognitive neuroscience, references to the artist as an agent increased between ages 4 and 6 and again between ages 6 and 8, following the development of Theory of Mind. The findings support the view that increased experience with representational content during the life span reduces inter-individual variation in aesthetic appreciation and increases shared preferences. In addition, brain and cognitive development appear to impact on art appreciation at milestone ages.Internal QR Grant to the first three authors, University of Chester

What Is the Medication Iatrogenic Risk in Elderly Outpatients for Chronic Pain?

International audiencePurpose: Medication iatrogeny is a major public health problem that increases as the population ages. Therapeutic escalation to control pain and associated disorders could increase polypharmacy and iatrogeny. This study aimed to characterize the medication iatrogenic risk of elderly outpatients with chronic pain.Methods: This was a prospective cohort study recruiting patients 65 years or older with chronic pain. A medication iatrogenic assessment was performed based on the best possible medication history to record risk of adverse drug events (Trivalle score), STOPP (Screening Tool of Older Person's Prescriptions)/START (Screening Tool to Alert doctors to Right Treatment) criteria, and potentially inappropriate medications.Results: We recruited 100 patients with an average age of 71 years. The median number of medications before pain consultation was 8 (interquartile range = [7;11]). Trivalle score showed that 43% of patients were at moderate or high medication iatrogenic risk. Before consultation, 79% and 75% of patients had at least 1 STOPP or START criterion on their orders, respectively. One-third of orders mentioned benzodiazepine prescribed for more than 4 weeks. At least 1 potentially inappropriate medication was prescribed for 54% of the patients, with a median of 1 per patient (interquartile range = [0;1]). A combination of several anticholinergics was prescribed in 23% of patients.Conclusion: Elderly patients with chronic pain are at risk of medication iatrogeny. Preventive measures as multidisciplinary medication review could reduce the iatrogenic risk in these outpatients.This study is registered at clinicaltrials.gov as NCT04006444 on July 3, 2019

Threshold and weighted-distance methods: a combined multiscale approach improves explanatory power of forest carabid beetle abundance in agricultural landscape

International audienceContext To analyze the scales at which landscape structure influences ecological processes, two approaches with different underlying ecological assumptions exist; the usual threshold method and the weighted-distance method.Objectives We used abundance of species to test if the combination of weighted-distance and threshold approaches improves the explained variance of landscape metrics. Methods We developed a workflow using the two approaches to calculate metrics computed at multiple scales. The latter was developed using weighted metrics based on different weighted-distance functions, and one metric could be selected for more than one spatial scale. Then, we tested the explained variance of species distribution (the activity-density of Abax parallelepipedus) by these two approaches applied independently and then together in modeling a specific ecological response.Results The combination of metrics computed at multiple scales calculated by both weighted-distance and threshold method improved the predictive performance of the models. More precisely, adding metrics derived from the weighted-distance method to the threshold method significantly increased the explained variance when using the same environmental variables. The mean R-2 values of the selected model for the threshold method was 0.34 +/- 0.10, 0.49 +/- 0.11 with the weighted-distance method, and reached 0.71 +/- 0.07 with the two methods combined. These results demonstrate the importance of combining metrics using the weighted-distance method and the threshold method. In addition, activity-density was better explained by metrics selected at multiple scales.Conclusions This study highlights the importance of combining threshold and weighted-distance method at several scales to improve the explanation of ecological responses based on species abundance

Women and health professionals’ perspectives on a conditional cash transfer programme to improve pregnancy follow-up: a qualitative analysis of the NAITRE randomised controlled study

Objectives Women of low socioeconomic status have been described as having suboptimal prenatal care, which in turn has been associated with poor pregnancy outcomes. Many types of conditional cash transfer (CCT) programmes have been developed, including programmes to improve prenatal care or smoking cessation during pregnancy, and their effects demonstrated. However, ethical critiques have included paternalism and lack of informed choice. Our objective was to determine if women and healthcare professionals (HPs) shared these concerns.Design Prospective qualitative research.Setting We included economically disadvantaged women, as defined by health insurance data, who participated in the French NAITRE randomised trial assessing a CCT programme during prenatal follow-up to improve pregnancy outcomes. The HP worked in some maternities participating in this trial.Participants 26 women, 14 who received CCT and 12 who did not, mostly unemployed (20/26), and - 7 HPs.Interventions We conducted a multicentre cross-sectional qualitative study among women and HPs who participated in the NAITRE Study to assess their views on CCT. The women were interviewed after childbirth.Results Women did not perceive CCT negatively. They did not mention feeling stigmatised. They described CCT as a significant source of aid for women with limited financial resources. HP described the CCT in less positive terms, for example, expressing concern about discussing cash transfer at their first medical consultation with women. Though they emphasised ethical concerns about the basis of the trial, they recognised the importance of evaluating CCT.Conclusions In France, a high-income country where prenatal follow-up is free, HPs were concerned that the CCT programme would change their relationship with patients and wondered if it was the best use of funding. However, women who received a cash incentive said they did not feel stigmatised and indicated that these payments helped them prepare for their baby’s birth.Trial registration number NCT0240285

Effect of anakinra versus usual care in adults in hospital with COVID-19 and mild-to-moderate pneumonia (CORIMUNO-ANA-1): a randomised controlled trial

International audienc

Effect of Tocilizumab vs Usual Care in Adults Hospitalized With COVID-19 and Moderate or Severe Pneumonia

International audienceImportance Severe pneumonia with hyperinflammation and elevated interleukin-6 is a common presentation of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19).Objective To determine whether tocilizumab (TCZ) improves outcomes of patients hospitalized with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia.Design, Setting, and Particpants This cohort-embedded, investigator-initiated, multicenter, open-label, bayesian randomized clinical trial investigating patients with COVID-19 and moderate or severe pneumonia requiring at least 3 L/min of oxygen but without ventilation or admission to the intensive care unit was conducted between March 31, 2020, to April 18, 2020, with follow-up through 28 days. Patients were recruited from 9 university hospitals in France. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis with no correction for multiplicity for secondary outcomes.Interventions Patients were randomly assigned to receive TCZ, 8 mg/kg, intravenously plus usual care on day 1 and on day 3 if clinically indicated (TCZ group) or to receive usual care alone (UC group). Usual care included antibiotic agents, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, vasopressor support, and anticoagulants.Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcomes were scores higher than 5 on the World Health Organization 10-point Clinical Progression Scale (WHO-CPS) on day 4 and survival without need of ventilation (including noninvasive ventilation) at day 14. Secondary outcomes were clinical status assessed with the WHO-CPS scores at day 7 and day 14, overall survival, time to discharge, time to oxygen supply independency, biological factors such as C-reactive protein level, and adverse events.Results Of 131 patients, 64 patients were randomly assigned to the TCZ group and 67 to UC group; 1 patient in the TCZ group withdrew consent and was not included in the analysis. Of the 130 patients, 42 were women (32%), and median (interquartile range) age was 64 (57.1-74.3) years. In the TCZ group, 12 patients had a WHO-CPS score greater than 5 at day 4 vs 19 in the UC group (median posterior absolute risk difference [ARD] −9.0%; 90% credible interval [CrI], −21.0 to 3.1), with a posterior probability of negative ARD of 89.0% not achieving the 95% predefined efficacy threshold. At day 14, 12% (95% CI −28% to 4%) fewer patients needed noninvasive ventilation (NIV) or mechanical ventilation (MV) or died in the TCZ group than in the UC group (24% vs 36%, median posterior hazard ratio [HR] 0.58; 90% CrI, 0.33-1.00), with a posterior probability of HR less than 1 of 95.0%, achieving the predefined efficacy threshold. The HR for MV or death was 0.58 (90% CrI, 0.30 to 1.09). At day 28, 7 patients had died in the TCZ group and 8 in the UC group (adjusted HR, 0.92; 95% CI 0.33-2.53). Serious adverse events occurred in 20 (32%) patients in the TCZ group and 29 (43%) in the UC group (P = .21).Conclusions and Relevance In this randomized clinical trial of patients with COVID-19 and pneumonia requiring oxygen support but not admitted to the intensive care unit, TCZ did not reduce WHO-CPS scores lower than 5 at day 4 but might have reduced the risk of NIV, MV, or death by day 14. No difference on day 28 mortality was found. Further studies are necessary for confirming these preliminary results.Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0433180

Sarilumab in adults hospitalised with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 pneumonia (CORIMUNO-SARI-1): An open-label randomised controlled trial

International audienc