Commentary on Linda Mealey (1995), The sociobiology of sociopathy: An integrated evolutionary model

[SFS] When Genotype × Environment (G × E) interactions are present, heritability estimates are not interpretable. Mealey cites abundant evidence for G × E interactions in the etiology of sociopathy, thereby completely undermining estimates of the heritability of sociopathy which form the foundation of her model. Without proper evidence for a genetic basis of sociopathy, Mealey’s sociobiological model collapses under its own great weight. [LM] It is impossible to discuss the constructs “heritability,” “theory of mind,” and “normality” in a single coherent essay. The following three rejoinders address each of these exceedingly complex constructs individually, as each relates to the two-path model of sociopathy and psychopathy

Recent Decisions

Comments on recent decisions by George N. Tompkins, James M. Corcoran, John L. Rosshirt, Ronald P. Mealey, Patrick J. Foley, Lawrence J. Dolan, Edward J. Griffin, John W. Thornton, and Thomas R. King

Periodontal treatment to improve glycaemic control in diabetic patients: study protocol of the randomized, controlled DIAPERIO trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Periodontitis is a common, chronic inflammatory disease caused by gram-negative bacteria leading to destruction of tissues supporting the teeth. Epidemiological studies have consistently shown increased frequency, extent and severity of periodontitis among diabetic adults. More recently, some controlled clinical trials have also suggested that periodontal treatment could improve glycaemic control in diabetic patients. However current evidence does not provide sufficient information on which to confidently base any clinical recommendations. The main objective of this clinical trial is to assess whether periodontal treatment could lead to a decrease in glycated haemoglobin levels in metabolically unbalanced diabetic patients suffering from chronic periodontitis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The DIAPERIO trial is an open-label, 13-week follow-up, randomized, controlled trial. The total target sample size is planned at 150 participants, with a balanced (1:1) treatment allocation (immediate treatment vs delayed treatment). Periodontal treatment will include full mouth non-surgical scaling and root planing, systemic antibiotherapy, local antiseptics (chlorhexidine 0.12%) and oral health instructions. The primary outcome will be the difference in change of HbA1c between the two groups after the 13-weeks' follow-up. Secondary outcomes will be the difference in change of fructosamine levels and quality of life between the two groups.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The DIAPERIO trial will provide insight into the question of whether periodontal treatment could lead to an improvement in glycaemic control in metabolically unbalanced diabetic patients suffering from periodontitis. The results of this trial will help to provide evidence-based recommendations for clinicians and a draft framework for designing national health policies.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN15334496</p

You Look Familiar: How Malaysian Chinese Recognize Faces

East Asian and white Western observers employ different eye movement strategies for a variety of visual processing tasks, including face processing. Recent eye tracking studies on face recognition found that East Asians tend to integrate information holistically by focusing on the nose while white Westerners perceive faces featurally by moving between the eyes and mouth. The current study examines the eye movement strategy that Malaysian Chinese participants employ when recognizing East Asian, white Western, and African faces. Rather than adopting the Eastern or Western fixation pattern, Malaysian Chinese participants use a mixed strategy by focusing on the eyes and nose more than the mouth. The combination of Eastern and Western strategies proved advantageous in participants' ability to recognize East Asian and white Western faces, suggesting that individuals learn to use fixation patterns that are optimized for recognizing the faces with which they are more familiar

A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions – Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification

A classification scheme for periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions is necessary for clinicians to properly diagnose and treat patients as well as for scientists to investigate etiology, pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment of the diseases and conditions. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐implant Diseases and Conditions. The workshop was co‐sponsored by the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) and the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and included expert participants from all over the world. Planning for the conference, which was held in Chicago on November 9 to 11, 2017, began in early 2015.An organizing committee from the AAP and EFP commissioned 19 review papers and four consensus reports covering relevant areas in periodontology and implant dentistry. The authors were charged with updating the 1999 classification of periodontal diseases and conditions and developing a similar scheme for peri‐implant diseases and conditions. Reviewers and workgroups were also asked to establish pertinent case definitions and to provide diagnostic criteria to aid clinicians in the use of the new classification. All findings and recommendations of the workshop were agreed to by consensus.This introductory paper presents an overview for the new classification of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions, along with a condensed scheme for each of four workgroup sections, but readers are directed to the pertinent consensus reports and review papers for a thorough discussion of the rationale, criteria, and interpretation of the proposed classification. Changes to the 1999 classification are highlighted and discussed. Although the intent of the workshop was to base classification on the strongest available scientific evidence, lower level evidence and expert opinion were inevitably used whenever sufficient research data were unavailable.The scope of this workshop was to align and update the classification scheme to the current understanding of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions. This introductory overview presents the schematic tables for the new classification of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions and briefly highlights changes made to the 1999 classification. It cannot present the wealth of information included in the reviews, case definition papers, and consensus reports that has guided the development of the new classification, and reference to the consensus and case definition papers is necessary to provide a thorough understanding of its use for either case management or scientific investigation. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the reader use this overview as an introduction to these subjects. Accessing this publication online will allow the reader to use the links in this overview and the tables to view the source papers (Table ).Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144667/1/jcpe12935.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144667/2/jcpe12935_am.pd

A new classification scheme for periodontal and peri-implant diseases and conditions - Introduction and key changes from the 1999 classification

A classification scheme for periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions is necessary for clinicians to properly diagnose and treat patients as well as for scientists to investigate etiology, pathogenesis, natural history, and treatment of the diseases and conditions. This paper summarizes the proceedings of the World Workshop on the Classification of Periodontal and Peri‐implant Diseases and Conditions. The workshop was co‐sponsored by the American Academy of Periodontology (AAP) and the European Federation of Periodontology (EFP) and included expert participants from all over the world. Planning for the conference, which was held in Chicago on November 9 to 11, 2017, began in early 2015.An organizing committee from the AAP and EFP commissioned 19 review papers and four consensus reports covering relevant areas in periodontology and implant dentistry. The authors were charged with updating the 1999 classification of periodontal diseases and conditions and developing a similar scheme for peri‐implant diseases and conditions. Reviewers and workgroups were also asked to establish pertinent case definitions and to provide diagnostic criteria to aid clinicians in the use of the new classification. All findings and recommendations of the workshop were agreed to by consensus.This introductory paper presents an overview for the new classification of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions, along with a condensed scheme for each of four workgroup sections, but readers are directed to the pertinent consensus reports and review papers for a thorough discussion of the rationale, criteria, and interpretation of the proposed classification. Changes to the 1999 classification are highlighted and discussed. Although the intent of the workshop was to base classification on the strongest available scientific evidence, lower level evidence and expert opinion were inevitably used whenever sufficient research data were unavailable.The scope of this workshop was to align and update the classification scheme to the current understanding of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions. This introductory overview presents the schematic tables for the new classification of periodontal and peri‐implant diseases and conditions and briefly highlights changes made to the 1999 classification. It cannot present the wealth of information included in the reviews, case definition papers, and consensus reports that has guided the development of the new classification, and reference to the consensus and case definition papers is necessary to provide a thorough understanding of its use for either case management or scientific investigation. Therefore, it is strongly recommended that the reader use this overview as an introduction to these subjects. Accessing this publication online will allow the reader to use the links in this overview and the tables to view the source papers (Table 1).Peer Reviewedhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144587/1/jper10117_am.pdfhttps://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/144587/2/jper10117.pd

Statin use is associated with fewer periodontal lesions: A retrospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Inflammatory processes are considered to participate in the development of cardiovascular disease (CVD). Statins have been used successfully in the prevention and treatment of coronary heart disease. Chronic periodontitis has been suggested to contribute to CVD. The aim of this study was to examine the association of statin use and clinical markers of chronic periodontitis.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Periodontal probing pocket depth (PPD) values were collected from dental records of 100 consecutive adult patients referred to a university dental clinic for treatment of advanced chronic periodontitis. A novel index, Periodontal Inflammatory Burden Index (PIBI), was derived from the PPD values to estimate systemic effects of periodontitis.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Periodontitis patients taking statins had a 37% lower number of pathological periodontal pockets than those without statin medication (P = 0.00043). PIBI, which combines and unifies the data on PPD, was 40% smaller in statin using patients than in patients without statin (P = 0.00069). PIBI of subjects on simvastatin and atorvastatin both differed significantly from patients without statin and were on the same level. The subjects' number of teeth had no effect on the results</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Patients on statin medication exhibit fewer signs of periodontal inflammatory injury than subjects without the statin regimen. PIBI provides a tool for monitoring inflammatory load of chronic periodontitis. The apparent beneficial effects of statins may in part be mediated by their pleiotropic anti-inflammatory effect on periodontal tissue.</p

The Good, the Bad, and the Rare: Memory for Partners in Social Interactions

For cooperation to evolve via direct reciprocity, individuals must track their partners' behavior to avoid exploitation. With increasing size of the interaction group, however, memory becomes error prone. To decrease memory effort, people could categorize partners into types, distinguishing cooperators and cheaters. We explored two ways in which people might preferentially track one partner type: remember cheaters or remember the rare type in the population. We assigned participants to one of three interaction groups which differed in the proportion of computer partners' types (defectors rare, equal proportion, or cooperators rare). We extended research on both hypotheses in two ways. First, participants experienced their partners repeatedly by interacting in Prisoner's Dilemma games. Second, we tested categorization of partners as cooperators or defectors in memory tests after a short and long retention interval (10 min and 1 week). Participants remembered rare partner types better than they remembered common ones at both retention intervals. We propose that the flexibility of responding to the environment suggests an ecologically rational memory strategy in social interactions