Response to Guttman & Levy's article ‘on the definition and varieties of attitude and wellbeing’

Guttman and Levy have prepared an extravagant critique focused mainly on the 1980 Andrews-McKennell article in this journal. The clearly stated purpose of that article was to report a “series of explorations into the affective and cognitive components of some of the more widely used measures of perceived well-being”. Guttman and Levy ignore this. They proceed on the mistaken impression that we were (or perhaps should have been) embarking upon a definitional exercise to relate the concepts of attitude and wellbeing. Yet the reason we did not cite their article on that topic was precisely because it did not address in a direct or focused way the topic that concerned us. Their critique consists of an entirely irrelevant reanalysis of some attitudinal data by Ostrom, together with a tissue of recondite definitional and methodological issues of little consequence either for the objectives or the conclusions of our research. Their dismissal of our work as ‘scientific retrogression’ rests on an a priori definition of science that fits their own methodological style but excludes that of many other prominent researchers. Their comments reflect an attempt at methodological imperialism. We defend our independence — and that of other investigators — to use promising new methodologies other than the particular approach advocated by Guttman and Levy. (Their denunciation of the new methods of structural equation modeling is not shared even by the authoritative reviewer they themselves quote.) In addition to Guttman and Levy's specific criticisms, our Response addresses general methodological issues such as the status of structural modeling and the testing of structural models. In a concluding section we identify areas that merit further research.Peer Reviewedhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/43680/1/11205_2004_Article_BF00302509.pd

Machine learning algorithms performed no better than regression models for prognostication in traumatic brain injury

Objective: We aimed to explore the added value of common machine learning (ML) algorithms for prediction of outcome for moderate and severe traumatic brain injury. Study Design and Setting: We performed logistic regression (LR), lasso regression, and ridge regression with key baseline predictors in the IMPACT-II database (15 studies, n = 11,022). ML algorithms included support vector machines, random forests, gradient boosting machines, and artificial neural networks and were trained using the same predictors. To assess generalizability of predictions, we performed internal, internal-external, and external validation on the recent CENTER-TBI study (patients with Glasgow Coma Scale <13, n = 1,554). Both calibration (calibration slope/intercept) and discrimination (area under the curve) was quantified. Results: In the IMPACT-II database, 3,332/11,022 (30%) died and 5,233(48%) had unfavorable outcome (Glasgow Outcome Scale less than 4). In the CENTER-TBI study, 348/1,554(29%) died and 651(54%) had unfavorable outcome. Discrimination and calibration varied widely between the studies and less so between the studied algorithms. The mean area under the curve was 0.82 for mortality and 0.77 for unfavorable outcomes in the CENTER-TBI study. Conclusion: ML algorithms may not outperform traditional regression approaches in a low-dimensional setting for outcome prediction after moderate or severe traumatic brain injury. Similar to regression-based prediction models, ML algorithms should be rigorously validated to ensure applicability to new populations

Variation in Structure and Process of Care in Traumatic Brain Injury: Provider Profiles of European Neurotrauma Centers Participating in the CENTER-TBI Study.

INTRODUCTION: The strength of evidence underpinning care and treatment recommendations in traumatic brain injury (TBI) is low. Comparative effectiveness research (CER) has been proposed as a framework to provide evidence for optimal care for TBI patients. The first step in CER is to map the existing variation. The aim of current study is to quantify variation in general structural and process characteristics among centers participating in the Collaborative European NeuroTrauma Effectiveness Research in Traumatic Brain Injury (CENTER-TBI) study. METHODS: We designed a set of 11 provider profiling questionnaires with 321 questions about various aspects of TBI care, chosen based on literature and expert opinion. After pilot testing, questionnaires were disseminated to 71 centers from 20 countries participating in the CENTER-TBI study. Reliability of questionnaires was estimated by calculating a concordance rate among 5% duplicate questions. RESULTS: All 71 centers completed the questionnaires. Median concordance rate among duplicate questions was 0.85. The majority of centers were academic hospitals (n = 65, 92%), designated as a level I trauma center (n = 48, 68%) and situated in an urban location (n = 70, 99%). The availability of facilities for neuro-trauma care varied across centers; e.g. 40 (57%) had a dedicated neuro-intensive care unit (ICU), 36 (51%) had an in-hospital rehabilitation unit and the organization of the ICU was closed in 64% (n = 45) of the centers. In addition, we found wide variation in processes of care, such as the ICU admission policy and intracranial pressure monitoring policy among centers. CONCLUSION: Even among high-volume, specialized neurotrauma centers there is substantial variation in structures and processes of TBI care. This variation provides an opportunity to study effectiveness of specific aspects of TBI care and to identify best practices with CER approaches

Comprehensive analysis of epigenetic clocks reveals associations between disproportionate biological ageing and hippocampal volume

The concept of age acceleration, the difference between biological age and chronological age, is of growing interest, particularly with respect to age-related disorders, such as Alzheimer’s Disease (AD). Whilst studies have reported associations with AD risk and related phenotypes, there remains a lack of consensus on these associations. Here we aimed to comprehensively investigate the relationship between five recognised measures of age acceleration, based on DNA methylation patterns (DNAm age), and cross-sectional and longitudinal cognition and AD-related neuroimaging phenotypes (volumetric MRI and Amyloid-β PET) in the Australian Imaging, Biomarkers and Lifestyle (AIBL) and the Alzheimer’s Disease Neuroimaging Initiative (ADNI). Significant associations were observed between age acceleration using the Hannum epigenetic clock and cross-sectional hippocampal volume in AIBL and replicated in ADNI. In AIBL, several other findings were observed cross-sectionally, including a significant association between hippocampal volume and the Hannum and Phenoage epigenetic clocks. Further, significant associations were also observed between hippocampal volume and the Zhang and Phenoage epigenetic clocks within Amyloid-β positive individuals. However, these were not validated within the ADNI cohort. No associations between age acceleration and other Alzheimer’s disease-related phenotypes, including measures of cognition or brain Amyloid-β burden, were observed, and there was no association with longitudinal change in any phenotype. This study presents a link between age acceleration, as determined using DNA methylation, and hippocampal volume that was statistically significant across two highly characterised cohorts. The results presented in this study contribute to a growing literature that supports the role of epigenetic modifications in ageing and AD-related phenotypes

New insights into the genetic etiology of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias

Characterization of the genetic landscape of Alzheimer's disease (AD) and related dementias (ADD) provides a unique opportunity for a better understanding of the associated pathophysiological processes. We performed a two-stage genome-wide association study totaling 111,326 clinically diagnosed/'proxy' AD cases and 677,663 controls. We found 75 risk loci, of which 42 were new at the time of analysis. Pathway enrichment analyses confirmed the involvement of amyloid/tau pathways and highlighted microglia implication. Gene prioritization in the new loci identified 31 genes that were suggestive of new genetically associated processes, including the tumor necrosis factor alpha pathway through the linear ubiquitin chain assembly complex. We also built a new genetic risk score associated with the risk of future AD/dementia or progression from mild cognitive impairment to AD/dementia. The improvement in prediction led to a 1.6- to 1.9-fold increase in AD risk from the lowest to the highest decile, in addition to effects of age and the APOE ε4 allele

Clustering identifies endotypes of traumatic brain injury in an intensive care cohort: a CENTER-TBI study

Background While the Glasgow coma scale (GCS) is one of the strongest outcome predictors, the current classification of traumatic brain injury (TBI) as ‘mild’, ‘moderate’ or ‘severe’ based on this fails to capture enormous heterogeneity in pathophysiology and treatment response. We hypothesized that data-driven characterization of TBI could identify distinct endotypes and give mechanistic insights. Methods We developed an unsupervised statistical clustering model based on a mixture of probabilistic graphs for presentation (< 24 h) demographic, clinical, physiological, laboratory and imaging data to identify subgroups of TBI patients admitted to the intensive care unit in the CENTER-TBI dataset (N = 1,728). A cluster similarity index was used for robust determination of optimal cluster number. Mutual information was used to quantify feature importance and for cluster interpretation. Results Six stable endotypes were identified with distinct GCS and composite systemic metabolic stress profiles, distinguished by GCS, blood lactate, oxygen saturation, serum creatinine, glucose, base excess, pH, arterial partial pressure of carbon dioxide, and body temperature. Notably, a cluster with ‘moderate’ TBI (by traditional classification) and deranged metabolic profile, had a worse outcome than a cluster with ‘severe’ GCS and a normal metabolic profile. Addition of cluster labels significantly improved the prognostic precision of the IMPACT (International Mission for Prognosis and Analysis of Clinical trials in TBI) extended model, for prediction of both unfavourable outcome and mortality (both p < 0.001). Conclusions Six stable and clinically distinct TBI endotypes were identified by probabilistic unsupervised clustering. In addition to presenting neurology, a profile of biochemical derangement was found to be an important distinguishing feature that was both biologically plausible and associated with outcome. Our work motivates refining current TBI classifications with factors describing metabolic stress. Such data-driven clusters suggest TBI endotypes that merit investigation to identify bespoke treatment strategies to improve care