The effect of five years versus two years of specialised assertive intervention for first episode psychosis - OPUS II: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The Danish OPUS I trial randomized 547 patients with first-episode psychosis to a two-year early-specialised assertive treatment programme (OPUS) versus standard treatment. The two years OPUS treatment had significant positive effects on psychotic and negative symptoms, secondary substance abuse, treatment adherence, lower dosage of antipsychotic medication, and a higher treatment satisfaction. However, three years after end of the OPUS treatment, the positive clinical effects were not sustained, except that OPUS-treated patients were significantly less likely to be institutionalised compared with standard-treated patients. The major objective of the OPUS II trial is to evaluate the effects of five years of OPUS treatment versus two years of OPUS treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The OPUS II trial is designed as a randomized, open label, parallel group trial with blinded outcome assessment. Based on our sample size estimation, 400 patients treated in OPUS for two years will be randomized to further three years of OPUS treatment versus standard treatment. The specialized assertive OPUS treatment consists of three core elements: assertive community treatment, psycho-educational family treatment, and social skills training.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>It has been hypothesized that there is a critical period from onset up to five years, which represents a window of opportunity where a long-term course can be influenced. Extending the specialized assertive OPUS treatment up to five years may allow the beneficial effects to continue beyond the high-risk period, through consolidation of improved social and functional outcome.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Clinical Trial.gov <a href="http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00914238">NCT00914238</a></p

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Neural Substrates of Psychotic Depression : Findings From the Global ECT-MRI Research Collaboration

Psychotic major depression (PMD) is hypothesized to be a distinct clinical entity from nonpsychotic major depression (NPMD). However, neurobiological evidence supporting this notion is scarce. The aim of this study is to identify gray matter volume (GMV) differences between PMD and NPMD and their longitudinal change following electroconvulsive therapy (ECT). Structural magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) data from 8 independent sites in the Global ECT-MRI Research Collaboration (GEMRIC) database (n = 108; 56 PMD and 52 NPMD; mean age 71.7 in PMD and 70.2 in NPMD) were analyzed. All participants underwent MRI before and after ECT. First, cross-sectional whole-brain voxel-wise GMV comparisons between PMD and NPMD were conducted at both time points. Second, in a flexible factorial model, a main effect of time and a group-by-time interaction were examined to identify longitudinal effects of ECT on GMV and longitudinal differential effects of ECT between PMD and NPMD, respectively. Compared with NPMD, PMD showed lower GMV in the prefrontal, temporal and parietal cortex before ECT; PMD showed lower GMV in the medial prefrontal cortex (MPFC) after ECT. Although there was a significant main effect of time on GMV in several brain regions in both PMD and NPMD, there was no significant group-by-time interaction. Lower GMV in the MPFC was consistently identified in PMD, suggesting this may be a trait-like neural substrate of PMD. Longitudinal effect of ECT on GMV may not explain superior ECT response in PMD, and further investigation is needed.Funding Agencies|Keio University Medical Science Fund [99-095-0007]; AMED [JP20dm0307102h0003]; Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) grantFWO [G0C0319N]; KU Leuven Fund [C24/18/095]; Sequoia Fund for Research on Ageing and Mental Health; National Institute of HealthUnited States Department of Health &amp; Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USA [MH125126, MH111826]; Carlos III Health InstituteInstituto de Salud Carlos III [CD20/00189]; Lundbeck FoundationLundbeckfonden; Western Norway Regional Health Authority [911986, 912238]</p