Models of conditioned reinforcement and abnormal behaviour in captive animals

Abnormal behaviours are common in captive animals, and despite a lot of research, the development, maintenance and alleviation of these behaviours are not fully understood. Here, we suggest that conditioned reinforcement can induce sequential dependencies in behaviour that are difficult to infer from direct observation. We develop this hypothesis using recent models of associative learning that include conditioned reinforcement and inborn facets of behaviour, such as predisposed responses and motivational systems. We explore three scenarios in which abnormal behaviour emerges from a combination of associative learning and a mismatch between the captive environment and inborn predispositions. The first model considers how abnormal behaviours, such as locomotor stereotypies, may arise from certain spatial locations acquiring conditioned reinforcement value. The second model shows that conditioned reinforcement can give rise to abnormal behaviour in response to stimuli that regularly precede food or other reinforcers. The third model shows that abnormal behaviour can result from motivational systems being adapted to natural environments that have different temporal structures than the captive environment. We conclude that models including conditioned reinforcement offer an important theoretical insight regarding the complex relationships between captive environments, inborn predispositions, and learning. In the future, this general framework could allow us to further understand and possibly alleviate abnormal behaviours

Simulation of the mechanical interlocking capacity of a rough bone implant surface during healing

Background: When an implant is inserted in the bone the healing process starts to osseointegrate the implant by creating new bone that interlocks with the implant. Biomechanical interlocking capacity is commonly evaluated in in vivo experiments. It would be beneficial to find a numerical method to evaluate the interlocking capacity of different surface structures with bone. In the present study, the theoretical interlocking capacity of three different surfaces after different healing times was evaluated by the means of explicit finite element analysis. Methods: The surface topographies of the three surfaces were measured with interferometry and were used to construct a 3D bone-implant model. The implant was subjected to a displacement until failure of the bone-to-implant interface and the maximum force represents the interlocking capacity. Results: The simulated ratios (test/control) seem to agree with the in vivo ratios of Halldin et al. for longer healing times. However the absolute removal torque values are underestimated and do not reach the biomechanical performance found in the study by Halldin et al. which might be a result of unknown mechanical properties of the interface. Conclusion: Finite element analysis is a promising method that might be used prior to an in vivo study to compare the load bearing capacity of the bone-to-implant interface of two surface topographies at longer healing times

Implications of different guidelines for surveillance after serrated polyp resection in United States of America and Europe

Introduction âBecause individuals with serrated polyps and adenomas are at increased risk of developing new polyps and colorectal cancer (CRC), surveillance after resection is justified. After adenoma resection, most international guidelines are consistent, but recommendations for surveillance after serrated polyp resection vary. The United States Multi-Society Taskforce on CRC (US-MSTF) base surveillance intervals on serrated polyp subtype (traditional serrated adenoma, sessile serrated polyp, hyperplastic polyps), while the European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) guidelines do not take serrated polyp subtype into account. We evaluated the implications of this difference in a primary colonoscopy screening cohort. Methods âWe included participants from a large colonoscopy screening trial. In a post-hoc simulation, assuming full protocol adherence, we determined the surveillance interval for each subject based on their polyp burden, using the most recent US-MSTF and ESGE guidelines. Results âWe included 5323 participants, of whom 1228 had one or more serrated polyps. In 5201 of all participants (98â%; Cohen's kappa 0.90) and in 1106 of those with serrated polyps (90âŠ%; Cohen's kappa 0.80), both guidelines recommended identical surveillance intervals. Recommendations for a 3-year surveillance interval were identical between the two guidelines. All 122 subjects with discordant recommendations would receive a follow-up colonoscopy after 10 years using ESGE guidance and after 5 years using US-MSTF guidance. Conclusion âDespite the different criteria used to determine surveillance after serrated polyp resection, most individuals are recommended identical colonoscopy surveillance intervals whether following the ESGE or US-MSTF guidelines. This suggests that surveillance recommendations do not need to consider the serrated polyp subtype

Post-polypectomy colonoscopy surveillance: European Society of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (ESGE) Guideline

The following recommendations for post-polypectomy endoscopic surveillance should be applied only after a high quality baseline colonoscopy with complete removal of all detected neoplastic lesions.1 In the low risk group (patients with 1 - 2 tubular adenomas < 10 mm with low grade dysplasia), the ESGE recommends participation in existing national screening programmes 10 years after the index colonoscopy. If no screening programme is available, repetition of colonoscopy 10 years after the index colonoscopy is recommended (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 2 In the high risk group (patients with adenomas with villous histology or high grade dysplasia or ≥10 mm in size, or ≥ 3 adenomas), the ESGE recommends surveillance colonoscopy 3 years after the index colonoscopy (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). Patients with 10 or more adenomas should be referred for genetic counselling (strong recommendation, moderate quality evidence). 3 In the high risk group, if no high risk adenomas are detected at the first surveillance examination, the ESGE suggests a 5-year interval before a second surveillance colonoscopy (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). If high risk adenomas are detected at first or subsequent surveillance examinations, a 3-year repetition of surveillance colonoscopy is recommended (strong recommendation, low quality evidence).4 The ESGE recommends that patients with serrated polyps < 10 mm in size with no dysplasia should be classified as low risk (weak recommendation, low quality evidence). The ESGE suggests that patients with large serrated polyps (≥ 10 mm) or those with dysplasia should be classified as high risk (weak recommendation, low quality evidence).5 The ESGE recommends that the endoscopist is responsible for providing a written recommendation for the post-polypectomy surveillance schedule (strong recommendation, low quality evidence