Understanding the contribution of neural and physiological signal variation to the low repeatability of emotion-induced BOLD responses

Previous studies have reported low repeatability of BOLD activation measures during emotion processing tasks. It is not clear, however, whether low repeatability is a result of changes in the underlying neural signal over time, or due to insufficient reliability of the acquired BOLD signal caused by noise contamination. The aim of this study was to investigate the influence of “cleaning” the BOLD signal, by correcting for physiological noise and for differences in BOLD responsiveness, on measures of repeatability. Fifteen healthy volunteers were scanned on two different occasions, performing an emotion provocation task with faces (neutral, 50% fearful, 100% fearful) followed by a breath-hold paradigm to provide a marker of BOLD responsiveness. Repeatability of signal distribution (spatial repeatability) and repeatability of signal amplitude within two regions of interest (amygdala and fusiform gyrus) were estimated by calculating the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Significant repeatability of signal amplitude was only found within the right amygdala during the perception of 50% fearful faces, but disappeared when physiological noise correction was performed. Spatial repeatability was higher within the fusiform gyrus than within the amygdala, and better at the group level than at the participant level. Neither physiological noise correction, nor consideration of BOLD responsiveness, assessed through the breath-holding, increased repeatability. The findings lead to the conclusion that low repeatability of BOLD response amplitude to emotional faces is more likely to be explained by the lack of stability in the underlying neural signal than by physiological noise contamination. Furthermore, reported repeatability might be a result of repeatability of task-correlated physiological variation rather than neural activity. This means that the emotion paradigm used in this study might not be useful for studies that require the BOLD response to be a stable measure of emotional processing, for example in the context of biomarkers

Study supporting the evaluation of the council recommendation of 20 December 2012 on the validation of non-formal and informal learning

The aim of this study is to support the Commission in evaluating the actions taken in the Member States in response to the 2012 Council Recommendation on the validation of non-formal and informal learning (VNFIL). It focuses on whether the objectives of the Recommendation have been achieved in terms of enabling individuals: to identify and document their skills and competences acquired through nonformal or informal learning; and to obtain either full or part qualifications compliant with recognised national and European standards for the benefit of their professional and social development. The study finds that Member States have made good progress in developing VNFIL arrangements since 2012 even if service provision often remains asymmetrical or fragmented across different levels of education and training as well as different occupational sectors. The contribution of the Recommendation to the progress made is best visible in those Member States where VNFIL arrangements were mostly inexistent prior to 2012, but less apparent in the remaining Member States. Nevertheless, the Recommendation is deemed to have given some strategic direction to policy discussions on VNFIL across the Member States. This study concludes with possibilities to consider for enhancing the influence of EU interventions on Member States’ VNFIL policies and processes

Agreement and repeatability of vascular reactivity estimates based on a breath-hold task and a resting state scan

FMRI BOLD responses to changes in neural activity are influenced by the reactivity of the vasculature. By complementing a task-related BOLD acquisition with a vascular reactivity measure obtained through breath-holding or hypercapnia, this unwanted variance can be statistically reduced in the BOLD responses of interest. Recently, it has been suggested that vascular reactivity can also be estimated using a resting state scan. This study aimed to compare three breath-hold based analysis approaches (block design, sine–cosine regressor and CO2 regressor) and a resting state approach (CO2 regressor) to measure vascular reactivity. We tested BOLD variance explained by the model and repeatability of the measures. Fifteen healthy participants underwent a breath-hold task and a resting state scan with end-tidal CO2 being recorded during both. Vascular reactivity was defined as CO2-related BOLD percent signal change/mm Hg change in CO2. Maps and regional vascular reactivity estimates showed high repeatability when the breath-hold task was used. Repeatability and variance explained by the CO2 trace regressor were lower for the resting state data based approach, which resulted in highly variable measures of vascular reactivity. We conclude that breath-hold based vascular reactivity estimations are more repeatable than resting-based estimates, and that there are limitations with replacing breath-hold scans by resting state scans for vascular reactivity assessment

Correction to: Navigate: A study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of an online treatment decision aid for men with low-risk prostate cancer and their partners

© 2021, The Author(s). Following publication of the original article [1], we were notified of a typo in the spelling of the 10th author name, originally spelt as “Cavdon” instead of “Cavedon” (i.e., missing “e”). The original article has been corrected

Navigate: A study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of an online treatment decision aid for men with low-risk prostate cancer and their partners

© 2021, The Author(s). Background: Active surveillance (AS) is the disease management option of choice for low-risk prostate cancer. Despite this, men with low-risk prostate cancer (LRPC) find management decisions distressing and confusing. We developed Navigate, an online decision aid to help men and their partners make management decisions consistent with their values. The aims are to evaluate the impact of Navigate on uptake of AS; decision-making preparedness; decisional conflict, regret and satisfaction; quality of illness communication; and prostate cancer-specific quality of life and anxiety. In addition, the healthcare cost impact, cost-effectiveness and patterns of use of Navigate will be assessed. This paper describes the study protocol. Methods: Three hundred four men and their partners are randomly assigned one-to-one to Navigate or to the control arm. Randomisation is electronically generated and stratified by site. Navigate is an online decision aid that presents up-to-date, unbiased information on LRPC tailored to Australian men and their partners including each management option and potential side-effects, and an interactive values clarification exercise. Participants in the control arm will be directed to the website of Australia’s peak national body for prostate cancer. Eligible patients will be men within 3 months of being diagnosed with LRPC, aged 18 years or older, and who are yet to make a treatment decision, who are deemed eligible for AS by their treating clinician and who have Internet access and sufficient English to participate. The primary outcome is self-reported uptake of AS as the first-line management option. Secondary outcomes include self-reported preparedness for decision-making; decisional conflict, regret and satisfaction; quality of illness communication; and prostate cancer-specific quality of life. Uptake of AS 1 month after consent will be determined through patient self-report. Men and their partners will complete study outcome measures before randomisation and 1, 3 and 6 months after study consent. Discussion: The Navigate online decision aid has the potential to increase the choice of AS in LRPC, avoiding or delaying unnecessary radical treatments and associated side effects. In addition, Navigate is likely to reduce patients’ and partners’ confusion and distress in management decision-making and increase their quality of life. Trial registration: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12616001665426. Registered on 2 December 2016. All items from the WHO Trial Registration Data set can be found in this manuscript