NikeGO: a Corporate-Sponsored Program to Increase Physical Activity and Foster Youth Development

NikeGO was initiated in 2002 by the Nike US Community Affairs Division to address a growing need: to provide youth a safe environment in which to be physically active. Nike collaborated with several organizations across the country and offered an array of programs to foster developmentally appropriate physical activity among youth through their influencers (e.g., teachers, coaches). These programs reached youth in underserved areas ranging from urban inner cities to rural Native lands through various channels and settings including schools, Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCA’s, youth sports organizations, and others. Objective and subjective measures were used to determine the reach of the program, the dose of physical activity, the “fun” level of the activities, changes in youths’ self-esteem and self-concept, and the likelihood of continued participation. Many older youth gained leadership skills in the process. Overall, the programs have been successful in reaching “hard to reach” youth and engaging them in the positive, developmentally sensitive, health behaviors

NikeGO: a Corporate-Sponsored Program to Increase Physical Activity and Foster Youth Development

NikeGO was initiated in 2002 by the Nike US Community Affairs Division to address a growing need: to provide youth a safe environment in which to be physically active. Nike collaborated with several organizations across the country and offered an array of programs to foster developmentally appropriate physical activity among youth through their influencers (e.g., teachers, coaches). These programs reached youth in underserved areas ranging from urban inner cities to rural Native lands through various channels and settings including schools, Boys and Girls Clubs, YMCA’s, youth sports organizations, and others. Objective and subjective measures were used to determine the reach of the program, the dose of physical activity, the “fun” level of the activities, changes in youths’ self-esteem and self-concept, and the likelihood of continued participation. Many older youth gained leadership skills in the process. Overall, the programs have been successful in reaching “hard to reach” youth and engaging them in the positive, developmentally sensitive, health behaviors

Establishing a core outcome set for peritoneal dialysis : report of the SONG-PD (standardized outcomes in nephrology-peritoneal dialysis) consensus workshop

Outcomes reported in randomized controlled trials in peritoneal dialysis (PD) are diverse, are measured inconsistently, and may not be important to patients, families, and clinicians. The Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-Peritoneal Dialysis (SONG-PD) initiative aims to establish a core outcome set for trials in PD based on the shared priorities of all stakeholders. We convened an international SONG-PD stakeholder consensus workshop in May 2018 in Vancouver, Canada. Nineteen patients/caregivers and 51 health professionals attended. Participants discussed core outcome domains and implementation in trials in PD. Four themes relating to the formation of core outcome domains were identified: life participation as a main goal of PD, impact of fatigue, empowerment for preparation and planning, and separation of contributing factors from core factors. Considerations for implementation were identified: standardizing patient-reported outcomes, requiring a validated and feasible measure, simplicity of binary outcomes, responsiveness to interventions, and using positive terminology. All stakeholders supported inclusion of PD-related infection, cardiovascular disease, mortality, technique survival, and life participation as the core outcome domains for PD

Serum neurofilament dynamics predicts neurodegeneration and clinical progression in presymptomatic Alzheimer's disease

Neurofilament light chain (NfL) is a promising fluid biomarker of disease progression for various cerebral proteopathies. Here we leverage the unique characteristics of the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network and ultrasensitive immunoassay technology to demonstrate that NfL levels in the cerebrospinal fluid (n = 187) and serum (n = 405) are correlated with one another and are elevated at the presymptomatic stages of familial Alzheimer's disease. Longitudinal, within-person analysis of serum NfL dynamics (n = 196) confirmed this elevation and further revealed that the rate of change of serum NfL could discriminate mutation carriers from non-mutation carriers almost a decade earlier than cross-sectional absolute NfL levels (that is, 16.2 versus 6.8 years before the estimated symptom onset). Serum NfL rate of change peaked in participants converting from the presymptomatic to the symptomatic stage and was associated with cortical thinning assessed by magnetic resonance imaging, but less so with amyloid-β deposition or glucose metabolism (assessed by positron emission tomography). Serum NfL was predictive for both the rate of cortical thinning and cognitive changes assessed by the Mini-Mental State Examination and Logical Memory test. Thus, NfL dynamics in serum predict disease progression and brain neurodegeneration at the early presymptomatic stages of familial Alzheimer's disease, which supports its potential utility as a clinically useful biomarker

Comparing cortical signatures of atrophy between late-onset and autosomal dominant Alzheimer disease

Defining a signature of cortical regions of interest preferentially affected by Alzheimer disease (AD) pathology may offer improved sensitivity to early AD compared to hippocampal volume or mesial temporal lobe alone. Since late-onset Alzheimer disease (LOAD) participants tend to have age-related comorbidities, the younger-onset age in autosomal dominant AD (ADAD) may provide a more idealized model of cortical thinning in AD. To test this, the goals of this study were to compare the degree of overlap between the ADAD and LOAD cortical thinning maps and to evaluate the ability of the ADAD cortical signature regions to predict early pathological changes in cognitively normal individuals. We defined and analyzed the LOAD cortical maps of cortical thickness in 588 participants from the Knight Alzheimer Disease Research Center (Knight ADRC) and the ADAD cortical maps in 269 participants from the Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network (DIAN) observational study. Both cohorts were divided into three groups: cognitively normal controls (nADRC = 381; nDIAN = 145), preclinical (nADRC = 153; nDIAN = 76), and cognitively impaired (nADRC = 54; nDIAN = 48). Both cohorts underwent clinical assessments, 3T MRI, and amyloid PET imaging with either 11C-Pittsburgh compound B or 18F-florbetapir. To generate cortical signature maps of cortical thickness, we performed a vertex-wise analysis between the cognitively normal controls and impaired groups within each cohort using six increasingly conservative statistical thresholds to determine significance. The optimal cortical map among the six statistical thresholds was determined from a receiver operating characteristic analysis testing the performance of each map in discriminating between the cognitively normal controls and preclinical groups. We then performed within-cohort and cross-cohort (e.g. ADAD maps evaluated in the Knight ADRC cohort) analyses to examine the sensitivity of the optimal cortical signature maps to the amyloid levels using only the cognitively normal individuals (cognitively normal controls and preclinical groups) in comparison to hippocampal volume. We found the optimal cortical signature maps were sensitive to early increases in amyloid for the asymptomatic individuals within their respective cohorts and were significant beyond the inclusion of hippocampus volume, but the cortical signature maps performed poorly when analyzing across cohorts. These results suggest the cortical signature maps are a useful MRI biomarker of early AD-related neurodegeneration in preclinical individuals and the pattern of decline differs between LOAD and ADAD.Fil: Dincer, Aylin. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados UnidosFil: Gordon, Brian A.. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados UnidosFil: Hari-Raj, Amrita. Ohio State University; Estados UnidosFil: Keefe, Sarah J.. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados UnidosFil: Flores, Shaney. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados UnidosFil: McKay, Nicole S.. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados UnidosFil: Paulick, Angela M.. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados UnidosFil: Shady Lewis, Kristine E.. University of Kentucky; Estados UnidosFil: Feldman, Rebecca L.. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados UnidosFil: Hornbeck, Russ C.. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados UnidosFil: Allegri, Ricardo Francisco. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas; Argentina. Fundación para la Lucha contra las Enfermedades Neurológicas de la Infancia; ArgentinaFil: Ances, Beau M.. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados UnidosFil: Berman, Sarah B.. University of Pittsburgh; Estados UnidosFil: Brickman, Adam M.. Columbia University; Estados UnidosFil: Brooks, William S.. Neuroscience Research Australia; Australia. University of New South Wales; AustraliaFil: Cash, David M.. UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology; Reino UnidoFil: Chhatwal, Jasmeer P.. Harvard Medical School; Estados UnidosFil: Farlow, Martin R.. Indiana University; Estados UnidosFil: Fougère, Christian la. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases; Alemania. University Hospital of Tübingen; AlemaniaFil: Fox, Nick C.. UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology; Reino UnidoFil: Fulham, Michael J.. Royal Prince Alfred Hospital; Australia. University of Sydney; AustraliaFil: Jack, Clifford R.. Mayo Clinic; Estados UnidosFil: Joseph-Mathurin, Nelly. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados UnidosFil: Karch, Celeste M.. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados UnidosFil: Lee, Athene. University Brown; Estados UnidosFil: Levin, Johannes. German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases; Alemania. Ludwig Maximilians Universitat; Alemania. Munich Cluster for Systems Neurology; AlemaniaFil: Masters, Colin L.. University of Melbourne; AustraliaFil: McDade, Eric M.. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados UnidosFil: Oh, Hwamee. University Brown; Estados UnidosFil: Perrin, Richard J.. Washington University in St. Louis; Estados Unido

First presentation with neuropsychiatric symptoms in autosomal dominant Alzheimer\u27s disease: The Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer\u27s Network Study

Behavioural changes and neuropsychiatric symptoms (NPS) commonly occur in Alzheimer’s disease (AD) but may not be recognised as AD-related when they are the presenting feature. NPS are important as they are associated with greater functional impairment, poorer quality of life, accelerated cognitive decline and worsened caregiver burden.1 Autosomal dominant AD (ADAD), although \u3c 1% of total AD cases, provides a valuable opportunity to study the clinical heterogeneity of AD. The young age at onset reduces the prevalence of age-related comorbid pathologies and the near 100% penetrance of pathogenic mutations reduces the likelihood of misdiagnosis.2 Anxiety and depression commonly occur in ADAD family members, with increased levels of depression having been found among predementia female mutation carriers.3 Subsequent studies, however, have shown that anxiety and/or depression are common regardless of mutation status, occurring in almost one in three at-risk individuals, with one study reporting a higher rate of depression in non-carriers (17%) than asymptomatic carriers (5%).4 5 Despite the high frequency of NPS in ADAD families, relatively little is known about the proportion of ADAD cases who present with predominantly behavioural symptoms. Our aims were to assess the first reported clinical change in symptomatic ADAD, to compare presentations across genotypes, and to compare cognitive performance between behavioural and cognitive-led presentations

How a Diverse Research Ecosystem Has Generated New Rehabilitation Technologies: Review of NIDILRR’s Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers

Over 50 million United States citizens (1 in 6 people in the US) have a developmental, acquired, or degenerative disability. The average US citizen can expect to live 20% of his or her life with a disability. Rehabilitation technologies play a major role in improving the quality of life for people with a disability, yet widespread and highly challenging needs remain. Within the US, a major effort aimed at the creation and evaluation of rehabilitation technology has been the Rehabilitation Engineering Research Centers (RERCs) sponsored by the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research. As envisioned at their conception by a panel of the National Academy of Science in 1970, these centers were intended to take a “total approach to rehabilitation”, combining medicine, engineering, and related science, to improve the quality of life of individuals with a disability. Here, we review the scope, achievements, and ongoing projects of an unbiased sample of 19 currently active or recently terminated RERCs. Specifically, for each center, we briefly explain the needs it targets, summarize key historical advances, identify emerging innovations, and consider future directions. Our assessment from this review is that the RERC program indeed involves a multidisciplinary approach, with 36 professional fields involved, although 70% of research and development staff are in engineering fields, 23% in clinical fields, and only 7% in basic science fields; significantly, 11% of the professional staff have a disability related to their research. We observe that the RERC program has substantially diversified the scope of its work since the 1970’s, addressing more types of disabilities using more technologies, and, in particular, often now focusing on information technologies. RERC work also now often views users as integrated into an interdependent society through technologies that both people with and without disabilities co-use (such as the internet, wireless communication, and architecture). In addition, RERC research has evolved to view users as able at improving outcomes through learning, exercise, and plasticity (rather than being static), which can be optimally timed. We provide examples of rehabilitation technology innovation produced by the RERCs that illustrate this increasingly diversifying scope and evolving perspective. We conclude by discussing growth opportunities and possible future directions of the RERC program