How strongly do word reading times and lexical decision times correlate? Combining data from eye movement corpora and megastudies

We assess the amount of shared variance between three measures of visual word recognition latencies: eye movement latencies, lexical decision times and naming times. After partialling out the effects of word frequency and word length, two well-documented predictors of word recognition latencies, we see that 7-44% of the variance is uniquely shared between lexical decision times and naming times, depending on the frequency range of the words used. A similar analysis of eye movement latencies shows that the percentage of variance they uniquely share either with lexical decision times or with naming times is much lower. It is 5 – 17% for gaze durations and lexical decision times in studies with target words presented in neutral sentences, but drops to .2% for corpus studies in which eye movements to all words are analysed. Correlations between gaze durations and naming latencies are lower still. These findings suggest that processing times in isolated word processing and continuous text reading are affected by specific task demands and presentation format, and that lexical decision times and naming times are not very informative in predicting eye movement latencies in text reading once the effect of word frequency and word length are taken into account. The difference between controlled experiments and natural reading suggests that reading strategies and stimulus materials may determine the degree to which the immediacy-of-processing assumption and the eye-mind assumption apply. Fixation times are more likely to exclusively reflect the lexical processing of the currently fixated word in controlled studies with unpredictable target words rather than in natural reading of sentences or texts

Comparison of three bone ultrasounds for the discrimination of subjects with and without osteoporotic fractures among 7562 elderly women.

Bone ultrasound measures (QUSs) can assess fracture risk in the elderly. We compared three QUSs and their association with nonvertebral fracture history in 7562 Swiss women 70-80 years of age. The association between nonvertebral fracture was higher for heel than phalangeal QUS. INTRODUCTION: Because of the high morbidity and mortality associated with osteoporotic fractures, it is essential to detect subjects at risk for such fractures with screening methods. Because quantitative bone ultrasound (QUS) discriminated subjects with osteoporotic fractures from controls in several cross-sectional studies and predicted fractures in prospective studies, QUS could be more practical than DXA for screening. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This cross-sectional and retrospective multicenter (10 centers) study was performed to compare three QUSs (two heel ultrasounds: Achilles+ [GE-Lunar] and Sahara [Hologic]; the phalanges: ultrasound DBM sonic 1200 [IGEA]) for determining by logistic regression nonvertebral fracture odds ratio (OR) in a sample of 7562 Swiss women, 75.3 +/- 3.1 years of age. The two heel QUSs measured the broadband ultrasound attenuation (BUA) and the speed of sound (SOS). In addition, Achilles+ calculated the stiffness index (SI) and the Sahara calculated the quantitative ultrasound index (QUI) from BUA and SOS. The DBM sonic 1200 measured the amplitude-dependent SOS (AD-SOS). RESULTS: Eighty-six women had a history of a traumatic hip fracture after the age of 50, 1594 had a history of forearm fracture, and 2016 had other nonvertebral fractures. No fracture history was reported by 3866 women. Discrimination for hip fracture was higher than for the other nonvertebral fractures. The two heel QUSs had a significantly higher discrimination power than the QUSs of the phalanges, with standardized ORs, adjusted for age and body mass index, ranging from 2.1 to 2.7 (95% CI = 1.6, 3.5) compared with 1.4 (95% CI = 1.1, 1.7) for the AD-SOS of DBM sonic 1200. CONCLUSION: This study showed a high association between heel QUS and hip fracture history in elderly Swiss women. This could justify integration of QUS among screening strategies for identifying elderly women at risk for osteoporotic fractures

Fluoride therapy of type I osteoporosis.

Sodium Fluoride (NaF) is the only medication so far clinically available with a bone formation stimulating property, through its peculiar mitogenic dose-dependent action on the osteoblast cell line. Bone strength is commensurate to bone mass, and in a condition with fragility fractures, like osteoporosis, it seems logical to restore bone mass without weakening bone strength. However, as with any active drug. NaF therapy requires adhesion to elementary rules if drawbacks are to be prevented. A first mandatory rule is not to prescribe NaF without calcium supplementation, if bone loss at the appendicular skeleton is to be avoided; to prevent this, the availability of monofluorophosphate (MFP), containing the fluoride and calcium salts in the same preparation has enhanced the compliance to calcium supplementation. A second rule is not to give supraphysiological doses of vitamin D, for the same reason. Third, if one wants to avoid a calcium shift from cortical to trabecular bone and osteomalacia, one should use small doses of NaF, of the order of 50 mg/day. With this in mind, the bioavailability of the drug has to be taken into account, particularly its gastrointestinal absorption which is dramatically enhanced if a plain non entericoated (EC) capsule is used, as compared to that of an EC tablet with the same face value. Too much NaF is deleterious to bone, a fact known for years. Already in 1972, it was noted that in all patients receiving 60 mg or more of NEC NaF, daily, morphologically abnormal bone developed and which appeared irregular and contained areas of incompletely mineralized bone. The bone was histologically and microradiographically normal in patients receiving 45 mg or less of NEC NaF/day. Fourth, NaF therapy is contraindicated in renal insufficiency owing to an enhanced retention in the skeleton. NaF is, however, by no means the ideal medication, because its therapeutic window is narrow. It has many bothersome drawbacks, and notably it is irritating for the gastric mucosa, a hazard which may be partly circumvented by the use of an Ec or slow release tablet. Furthermore, peripheral stress fractures may occur, and, in our experience, they were seen in 17% of patients, almost exclusively in females with a low lumbar BMD. Their occurrence should be curtailed by not allowing an increase in alkaline phosphatase activity of more than 50%. This is a relatively benign complication, because no stress fracture degenerated into a complete fracture. In all cases, the stress fractures healed after a transitory drug discontinuation. If there is some concern about cortical bone, NaF therapy may be associated with an antiresorber like estrogens which will prevent any further bone loss, and does not impair the response to NaF. NaF therapy should be reserved for patients suffering chiefly from trabecular osteoporosis and should be avoided in senile osteoporosis, because of a frequently impaired renal function. Currently, we would recommend in clinical practice a daily dose of 50 mg EC-NaF or 150 mg Ca-MFP as the therapy of involutional osteoporosis in women, reserving the dose of 75 mg EC-NAF or 200 mg MFP for males or female patients resistant to lower dose. The therapy should be maintained for 2 to 3 years, or more, according to the bone response, taking into account that patients with the vertebral crush fracture syndrome have lost on average 30%, as compard to the young adult mean