Clinical Factors Associated With Need for Neurosurgical Care in Young Children With Imaging for Macrocephaly: A Case Control Study

BACKGROUND: Macrocephaly is present in 2.3% of children with important neurosurgical conditions in the differential diagnosis. The objective of this study was to identify clinical associations with actionable imaging findings among children with head imaging for macrocephaly. METHODS: We conducted a case-control study of head imaging studies ordered for macrocephaly among children 24 months and younger in a multistate children\u27s health system. Four neurosurgeons reviewed the images, determining cases to be a \u27concern\u27 if neurosurgical follow-up or intervention was indicated. Electronic health records were reviewed to collect patient-level data and to determine if surgery was performed. Controls were matched 3:1 to cases of \u27concern\u27 in a multivariate model using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: In the study sample (n = 1293), 46 (4%) were concern cases, with 15 (1%) requiring surgery. Significant clinical factors associated with neurosurgical concern were bulging fontanel [aOR 7.47, (95% CI: 2.28-24.44), P \u3c 0.001], prematurity [aOR 21.26, (95% CI: 3.76-120.21), P \u3c 0.001], any delay [aOR 2.67, (95% CI: 1.13-6.27), P = 0.03], and head-weight Z-score difference (W_diff, defined as the difference between the Z-scores of head circumference and weight) [aOR 1.70, (95% CI: 1.22-2.37), P = 0.002]. CONCLUSIONS: Head imaging for macrocephaly identified few patients with findings of concern and fewer requiring surgery. A greater head-weight Z-score difference appears to represent a novel risk factor for neurosurgical follow-up or intervention

The Scientific Method as a Scaffold to Enhance Communication Skills in Chemistry

Scientific success in the field of chemistry depends upon the mastery of a wide range of soft skills, most notably scientific writing and speaking. However, training for scientific communication is typically limited at the undergraduate level, where students struggle to express themselves in a clear and logical manner. The underlying issue is deeper than basic technical skills; rather, it is a problem of students’ unawareness of a fundamental and strategic framework for writing and speaking with a purpose. The methodology has been implemented for individual mentorship and in our regional summer research program to deliver a blueprint of thought and reasoning that endows students with the confidence and skills to become more effective communicators. Our didactic process intertwines undergraduate research with the scientific method and is partitioned into six steps, referred to as “phases”, to allow for focused and deep thinking on the essential components of the scientific method. The phases are designed to challenge the student in their zone of proximal development so they learn to extract and ultimately comprehend the elements of the scientific method through focused written and oral assignments. Students then compile their newly acquired knowledge to create a compelling and logical story, using their persuasive written and oral presentations to complete a research proposal, final report, and formal 20 min presentation. We find that such an approach delivers the necessary guidance to promote the logical framework that improves writing and speaking skills. Over the past decade, we have witnessed both qualitative and quantitative gains in the students’ confidence in their abilities and skills (developed by this process), preparing them for future careers as young scientists

The World Federation of ADHD International Consensus Statement:208 Evidence-based conclusions about the disorder

Background: Misconceptions about ADHD stigmatize affected people, reduce credibility of providers, and prevent/delay treatment. To challenge misconceptions, we curated findings with strong evidence base. Methods: We reviewed studies with more than 2000 participants or meta-analyses from five or more studies or 2000 or more participants. We excluded meta-analyses that did not assess publication bias, except for meta-analyses of prevalence. For network meta-analyses we required comparison adjusted funnel plots. We excluded treatment studies with waiting-list or treatment as usual controls. From this literature, we extracted evidence-based assertions about the disorder. Results: We generated 208 empirically supported statements about ADHD. The status of the included statements as empirically supported is approved by 80 authors from 27 countries and 6 continents. The contents of the manuscript are endorsed by 366 people who have read this document and agree with its contents. Conclusions: Many findings in ADHD are supported by meta-analysis. These allow for firm statements about the nature, course, outcome causes, and treatments for disorders that are useful for reducing misconceptions and stigma.</p

AI is a viable alternative to high throughput screening: a 318-target study

: High throughput screening (HTS) is routinely used to identify bioactive small molecules. This requires physical compounds, which limits coverage of accessible chemical space. Computational approaches combined with vast on-demand chemical libraries can access far greater chemical space, provided that the predictive accuracy is sufficient to identify useful molecules. Through the largest and most diverse virtual HTS campaign reported to date, comprising 318 individual projects, we demonstrate that our AtomNet® convolutional neural network successfully finds novel hits across every major therapeutic area and protein class. We address historical limitations of computational screening by demonstrating success for target proteins without known binders, high-quality X-ray crystal structures, or manual cherry-picking of compounds. We show that the molecules selected by the AtomNet® model are novel drug-like scaffolds rather than minor modifications to known bioactive compounds. Our empirical results suggest that computational methods can substantially replace HTS as the first step of small-molecule drug discovery

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570

Clinical factors associated with need for neurosurgical care in young children with imaging for macrocephaly: a case control study

Abstract Background Macrocephaly is present in 2.3% of children with important neurosurgical conditions in the differential diagnosis. The objective of this study was to identify clinical associations with actionable imaging findings among children with head imaging for macrocephaly. Methods We conducted a case-control study of head imaging studies ordered for macrocephaly among children 24 months and younger in a multistate children’s health system. Four neurosurgeons reviewed the images, determining cases to be a ‘concern’ if neurosurgical follow-up or intervention was indicated. Electronic health records were reviewed to collect patient-level data and to determine if surgery was performed. Controls were matched 3:1 to cases of ‘concern’ in a multivariate model using conditional logistic regression. Results In the study sample (n = 1293), 46 (4%) were concern cases, with 15 (1%) requiring surgery. Significant clinical factors associated with neurosurgical concern were bulging fontanel [aOR 7.47, (95% CI: 2.28–24.44), P < 0.001], prematurity [aOR 21.26, (95% CI: 3.76–120.21), P < 0.001], any delay [aOR 2.67, (95% CI: 1.13–6.27), P = 0.03], and head-weight Z-score difference (W_diff, defined as the difference between the Z-scores of head circumference and weight) [aOR 1.70, (95% CI: 1.22–2.37), P = 0.002]. Conclusions Head imaging for macrocephaly identified few patients with findings of concern and fewer requiring surgery. A greater head-weight Z-score difference appears to represent a novel risk factor for neurosurgical follow-up or intervention

The Scientific Method as a Scaffold to Enhance Communication Skills in Chemistry

Scientific success in the field of chemistry depends upon the mastery of a wide range of soft skills, most notably scientific writing and speaking. However, training for scientific communication is typically limited at the undergraduate level, where students struggle to express themselves in a clear and logical manner. The underlying issue is deeper than basic technical skills; rather, it is a problem of students\u27 unawareness of a fundamental and strategic framework for writing and speaking with a purpose. The methodology has been implemented for individual mentorship and in our regional summer research program to deliver a blueprint of thought and reasoning that endows students with the confidence and skills to become more effective communicators. Our didactic process intertwines undergraduate research with the scientific method and is partitioned into six steps, referred to as phases , to allow for focused and deep thinking on the essential components of the scientific method. The phases are designed to challenge the student in their zone of proximal development so they learn to extract and ultimately comprehend the elements of the scientific method through focused written and oral assignments. Students then compile their newly acquired knowledge to create a compelling and logical story, using their persuasive written and oral presentations to complete a research proposal, final report, and formal 20 min presentation. We find that such an approach delivers the necessary guidance to promote the logical framework that improves writing and speaking skills. Over the past decade, we have witnessed both qualitative and quantitative gains in the students\u27 confidence in their abilities and skills (developed by this process), preparing them for future careers as young scientists