Protocol Risk factors for disruptive behaviours: protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis of quasi-experimental evidence

Introduction: Disruptive behaviour disorders, including oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder, are a common set of diagnoses in childhood and adolescence, with global estimates of 5.7%, 3.6% and 2.1% for any disruptive disorder, oppositional defiant disorder and conduct disorder, respectively. There are high economic and social costs associated with disruptive behaviours and the prevalence of these disorders has increased in recent years. As such, disruptive behaviours represent an escalating major public health concern and it is important to understand what factors may influence the risk of these behaviours. Such research would inform interventions that aim to prevent the development of disruptive behaviours. The current review will identify the most stringent evidence of putative risk factors for disruptive behaviour from quasi-experimental studies, which enable stronger causal inference. Methods and analysis: The review will be carried out according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. An electronic search of references published between 1 January 1980 and 1 March 2020 will be conducted using Medline, Embase, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Initial abstract and title screening, full-text screening and data extraction will be completed independently by two reviewers using Evidence for Policy and Practice Information (EPPI)-Reviewer 4 software. Quasi-experimental studies in the English language examining the association between any putative risk factor and a clearly defined measure of disruptive behaviour (eg, a validated questionnaire measure) will be included. We will conduct meta-analyses if we can pool a minimum of three similar studies with the same or similar exposures and outcomes. Ethics and dissemination: The proposed review does not require ethical approval. The results will help to identify risk factors for which there is strong evidence of causal effects on disruptive behaviours and also highlight potential risk factors that require further research. The findings will be disseminated via publication in a peer-reviewed scientific journal and through presentations at international meetings and conferences

Technical Performance Reduces during the Extra-Time Period of Professional Soccer Match-Play

Despite the importance of extra-time in determining progression in specific soccer tournament matches, few studies have profiled the demands of 120-minutes of soccer match-play. With a specific focus on the extra-time period, and using a within-match approach, we examined the influence of prolonged durations of professional soccer match-play on markers of technical (i.e., skilled) performance. In 18 matches involving professional European teams played between 2010 and 2014, this retrospective study quantified the technical actions observed during eight 15-minute epochs (E1: 00:00–14:59 min, E2: 15:00-29:59 min, E3: 30:00-44:59 min, E4: 45:00-59:59 min, E5: 60:00-74:59 min, E6: 75:00-89:59 min, E7: 90:00-104:59 min, E8: 105:00-119:59 min). Analysis of players who completed the demands of the full 120 min of match-play revealed that the cumulative number of successful passes observed during E8 (61±23) was lower than E1-4 (E1: 88±23, P=0.001; E2: 77±21, P=0.005; E3: 79±18, P=0.001; E4: 80±21, P=0.001) and E7 (73±20, P=0.002). Similarly, the total number of passes made in E8 (71±25) was reduced when compared to E1 (102±22, P=0.001), E3 (91±19, P=0.002), E4 (93±22, P≤0.0005) and E7 (84±20, P=0.001). The cumulative number of successful dribbles reduced in E8 (9±4) when compared to E1 (14±4, P=0.001) and E3 (12±4, P≤0.0005) and the total time the ball was in play was less in E8 (504±61 s) compared to E1 (598±70 s, P≤0.0005). These results demonstrate that match-specific factors reduced particular indices of technical performance in the second half of extra-time. Interventions that seek to maintain skilled performance throughout extra-time warrant further investigation

Fitness benefits of prolonged post-reproductive lifespan in women

Most animals reproduce until they die, but in humans, females can survive long after ceasing reproduction. In theory, a prolonged post-reproductive lifespan will evolve when females can gain greater fitness by increasing the success of their offspring than by continuing to breed themselves. Although reproductive success is known to decline in old age, it is unknown whether women gain fitness by prolonging lifespan post-reproduction. Using complete multi-generational demographic records, we show that women with a prolonged post-reproductive lifespan have more grandchildren, and hence greater fitness, in pre-modern populations of both Finns and Canadians. This fitness benefit arises because post-reproductive mothers enhance the lifetime reproductive success of their offspring by allowing them to breed earlier, more frequently and more successfully. Finally, the fitness benefits of prolonged lifespan diminish as the reproductive output of offspring declines. This suggests that in female humans, selection for deferred ageing should wane when one's own offspring become post-reproductive and, correspondingly, we show that rates of female mortality accelerate as their offspring terminate reproduction

The NeuroDante Project: Neurometric measurements of participant’s reaction to literary auditory stimuli from dante’s “divina commedia”

Neurodante. Progetto di analisi neurometrica di alcuni brani della Commedi

No imminent quantum supremacy by boson sampling

It is predicted that quantum computers will dramatically outperform their conventional counterparts. However, large-scale universal quantum computers are yet to be built. Boson sampling is a rudimentary quantum algorithm tailored to the platform of photons in linear optics, which has sparked interest as a rapid way to demonstrate this quantum supremacy. Photon statistics are governed by intractable matrix functions known as permanents, which suggests that sampling from the distribution obtained by injecting photons into a linear-optical network could be solved more quickly by a photonic experiment than by a classical computer. The contrast between the apparently awesome challenge faced by any classical sampling algorithm and the apparently near-term experimental resources required for a large boson sampling experiment has raised expectations that quantum supremacy by boson sampling is on the horizon. Here we present classical boson sampling algorithms and theoretical analyses of prospects for scaling boson sampling experiments, showing that near-term quantum supremacy via boson sampling is unlikely. While the largest boson sampling experiments reported so far are with 5 photons, our classical algorithm, based on Metropolised independence sampling (MIS), allowed the boson sampling problem to be solved for 30 photons with standard computing hardware. We argue that the impact of experimental photon losses means that demonstrating quantum supremacy by boson sampling would require a step change in technology.Comment: 25 pages, 9 figures. Comments welcom

Mathematical Evaluation of Community Level Impact of Combining Bed Nets and Indoor Residual Spraying upon Malaria Transmission in Areas where the main Vectors are Anopheles Arabiensis Mosquitoes.

Indoor residual insecticide spraying (IRS) and long-lasting insecticide treated nets (LLINs) are commonly used together even though evidence that such combinations confer greater protection against malaria than either method alone is inconsistent. A deterministic model of mosquito life cycle processes was adapted to allow parameterization with results from experimental hut trials of various combinations of untreated nets or LLINs (Olyset, PermaNet 2.0, Icon Life nets) with IRS (pirimiphos methyl, lambda cyhalothrin, DDT), in a setting where vector populations are dominated by Anopheles arabiensis, so that community level impact upon malaria transmission at high coverage could be predicted. Intact untreated nets alone provide equivalent personal protection to all three LLINs. Relative to IRS plus untreated nets, community level protection is slightly higher when Olyset or PermaNet 2.0 nets are added onto IRS with pirimiphos methyl or lambda cyhalothrin but not DDT, and when Icon Life nets supplement any of the IRS insecticides. Adding IRS onto any net modestly enhances communal protection when pirimiphos methyl is sprayed, while spraying lambda cyhalothrin enhances protection for untreated nets but not LLINs. Addition of DDT reduces communal protection when added to LLINs. Where transmission is mediated primarily by An. arabiensis, adding IRS to high LLIN coverage provides only modest incremental benefit (e.g. when an organophosphate like pirimiphos methyl is used), but can be redundant (e.g. when a pyrethroid like lambda cyhalothin is used) or even regressive (e.g. when DDT is used for the IRS). Relative to IRS plus untreated nets, supplementing IRS with LLINs will only modestly improve community protection. Beyond the physical protection that intact nets provide, additional protection against transmission by An. arabiensis conferred by insecticides will be remarkably small, regardless of whether they are delivered as LLINs or IRS. The insecticidal action of LLINs and IRS probably already approaches their absolute limit of potential impact upon this persistent vector so personal protection of nets should be enhanced by improving the physical integrity and durability. Combining LLINs and non-pyrethroid IRS in residual transmission systems may nevertheless be justified as a means to manage insecticide resistance and prevent potential rebound of not only An. arabiensis, but also more potent, vulnerable and historically important species such as Anopheles gambiae and Anopheles funestus

Waiting time variation in Early Intervention Psychosis services: longitudinal evidence from the SEPEA naturalistic cohort study

PURPOSE: Early Intervention Psychosis [EIP] services have gained traction internationally, but are currently undergoing various forms of reconfiguration. In England, such services are now mandated to ensure 50% of accepted referrals commence care within 14 days, but no empirical evidence exists. We sought to estimate waiting times to EIP services in a large, representative epidemiological cohort in England, and investigate possible reasons for any variation. METHODS: We estimated median waiting time from referral to acceptance by EIP services and investigated whether this varied by clinical, demographic or neighbourhood-level factors, amongst 798 participants, 16-35 years old, presenting to six EIP services over 3.5 years in a defined catchment area serving 2.5 million people. We used parametric survival analysis to inspect variation in waiting times (in days). RESULTS: Median waiting time was 15 days (interquartile range 7-30), although this varied across services (p < 0.01). Waiting times increased over the case ascertainment period by an average of 4.3 days (95% CI 1.3, 6.2; p < 0.01). Longer waiting times were associated with greater diagnostic uncertainty, indexed by an organic presentation (+ 9.1 days; 95% CI 1.9, 16.6; p < 0.01), polysubstance abuse (+ 2.6; 0.6, 3.9; p < 0.01), absence of psychotic disorder (+1.8; -0.1, 3.0; p = 0.05) and insidious onset (+1.8; -0.1, 3.0; p = 0.06). Waiting times did not vary by most demographic or neighbourhood-level characteristics. CONCLUSIONS: EIP services operate close to new waiting time standards in England, with little systematic variation by sociodemographic position. However, waiting times increased over the study period, coinciding with substantial service reorganisation. Longer waiting times associated with greater diagnostic uncertainty highlight opportunities to reduce delays in certain clinical groups at initial referral.The work for this paper was supported by: a Sir Henry Wellcome Research Fellowship from the Wellcome Trust (Grant No. WT085540) to Dr James Kirkbride, a Sir Henry Dale Fellowship to Dr James Kirkbride, jointly funded by the Wellcome Trust and the Royal Society (Grant No. 101272/Z/13/Z), and an NIHR Collaboration for Leadership in Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRC) grant for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (Grant No. RP-PG-0606-1335) to Prof Peter Jones. The funders had no involvement in any aspect of the design of this study, preparation of results, or decision to submit for publication. We thank the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (CPFT) and Norfolk and Suffolk Foundation Trusts (NSFT) for sponsoring this research