Beyond Absenteeism: Father Incarceration and its Effects on Children’s Development

High rates of incarceration among American men, coupled with high rates of fatherhood among men in prison, have motivated recent research on the effects of parental imprisonment on children’s development. We contribute to this literature using data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study to examine the effects of paternal incarceration on developmental and school readiness outcomes for approximately 3,000 urban children. We estimate cross-sectional and longitudinal regression models that control not only for fathers’ basic demographic characteristics and a rich set of potential confounders, but also for several measures of pre-incarceration child development, and family fixed effects. We find that paternal incarceration is positively associated with children’s externalizing problems at age five. Results are mixed with respect to attention problems, and we find some evidence that children of incarcerated fathers experience less anxiety than their peers. The observed effects of incarceration on child behavioral problems are significantly stronger than the effects of other forms of father absence, suggesting that children with incarcerated fathers may require specialized support from caretakers, teachers, and social service providers.Fragile families, childbearing, nonmarital childbearing, fartherhood, fathers, incarceration

Beyond absenteeism : father incarceration and child development

High rates of incarceration among American men, coupled with high rates of fatherhood among men in prison, have motivated recent research on the effects of parental imprisonment on children's development. We use data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study to examine the relationship between paternal incarceration and developmental outcomes for approximately 3,000 urban children. We estimate cross-sectional and longitudinal regression models that control not only for fathers' basic demographic characteristics and a rich set of potential confounders, but also for several measures of pre-incarceration child development and family fixed effects. We find significant increases in aggressive behaviors among children whose fathers are incarcerated, and some evidence of increased attention problems. The estimated effects of paternal incarceration are stronger than those of other forms of father absence, suggesting that children with incarcerated fathers may require specialized support from caretakers, teachers, and social service providers. The estimated effects are stronger for children who lived with their fathers prior to incarceration, but are also significant for children of nonresident fathers, suggesting that incarceration places children at risk through family hardships including and beyond parent-child separation

A Comparison of the Storage-Only Deficit and Joint Mechanism Deficit Hypotheses of the Verbal Working Memory Storage Capacity Limitation of Children with Developmental Language Disorder

Purpose: The storage-only deficit and joint mechanism deficit hypotheses are two possible explanations of the verbal working memory (vWM) storage capacity limitation of school-age children with developmental language disorder (DLD). We assessed the merits of each hypothesis in a large group of children with DLD and a group of same-age typically developing (TD) children. Method: Participants were 117 children with DLD and 117 propensity-matched TD children 7-11 years of age. Children completed tasks indexing vWM capacity, verbal short-term storage, sustained attention, attention switching, and lexical long-term memory (LTM). Results: For the DLD group, all of the mechanisms jointly explained 26.5% of total variance. Storage accounted for the greatest portion (13.7%), followed by controlled attention (primarily sustained attention 6.5%), and then lexical LTM (5.6%). For the TD group, all three mechanisms together explained 43.9% of total variance. Storage accounted for the most variance (19.6%), followed by lexical LTM (16.0%), sustained attention (5.4%), and attention switching (3.0%). There was a significant LTM by Group interaction in which stronger LTM scores were associated with significantly higher vWM capacity scores for the TD group as compared to the DLD group. Conclusions: Results support a joint mechanism deficit account of the vWM capacity limitation of children with DLD. Results provide substantively new insights into the underlying factors of the vWM capacity limitation in DLD

Altered Lysosomal Proteins in Neural-Derived Plasma Exosomes in Preclinical Alzheimer Disease

OBJECTIVE: Diverse autolysosomal proteins were quantified in neurally derived blood exosomes from patients with Alzheimer disease (AD) and controls to investigate disordered neuronal autophagy. METHODS: Blood exosomes obtained once from patients with AD (n = 26) or frontotemporal dementia (n = 16), other patients with AD (n = 20) both when cognitively normal and 1 to 10 years later when diagnosed, and case controls were enriched for neural sources by anti-human L1CAM antibody immunoabsorption. Extracted exosomal proteins were quantified by ELISAs and normalized with the CD81 exosomal marker. RESULTS: Mean exosomal levels of cathepsin D, lysosome-associated membrane protein 1 (LAMP-1), and ubiquitinylated proteins were significantly higher and of heat-shock protein 70 significantly lower for AD than controls in cross-sectional studies (p ≤ 0.0005). Levels of cathepsin D, LAMP-1, and ubiquitinylated protein also were significantly higher for patients with AD than for patients with frontotemporal dementia (p ≤ 0.006). Step-wise discriminant modeling of the protein levels correctly classified 100% of patients with AD. Exosomal levels of all proteins were similarly significantly different from those of matched controls in 20 patients 1 to 10 years before and at diagnosis of AD (p ≤ 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: Levels of autolysosomal proteins in neurally derived blood exosomes distinguish patients with AD from case controls and appear to reflect the pathology of AD up to 10 years before clinical onset. These preliminary results confirm in living patients with AD the early appearance of neuronal lysosomal dysfunction and suggest that these proteins may be useful biomarkers in large prospective studies

Low Neural Exosomal Levels of Cellular Survival Factors in Alzheimer\u27s Disease

Transcription factors that mediate neuronal defenses against diverse stresses were quantified in plasma neural-derived exosomes of Alzheimer\u27s disease or frontotemporal dementia patients and matched controls. Exosomal levels of low-density lipoprotein receptor-related protein 6, heat-shock factor-1, and repressor element 1-silencing transcription factor all were significantly lower in Alzheimer\u27s disease patients than controls (P \u3c 0.0001). In frontotemporal dementia, the only significant difference was higher levels of repressor element 1-silencing transcription factor than in controls. Exosomal transcription factors were diminished 2-10 years before clinical diagnosis of Alzheimer\u27s disease. Low exosomal levels of survival proteins may explain decreased neuronal resistance to Alzheimer\u27s disease neurotoxic proteins

Efficacy and safety of tafamidis doses in the Tafamidis in Transthyretin Cardiomyopathy Clinical Trial (ATTR-ACT) and long-term extension study.

Aims Tafamidis is an effective treatment for transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM) in the Tafamidis in Transthyretin Cardiomyopathy Clinical Trial (ATTR-ACT). While ATTR-ACT was not designed for a dose-specific assessment, further analysis from ATTR-ACT and its long-term extension study (LTE) can guide determination of the optimal dose. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Methods and results In ATTR-ACT, patients were randomized (2:1:2) to tafamidis 80 mg, 20mg, or placebo for 30months. Patients completing ATTR-ACT could enrol in the LTE (with placebo-treated patients randomized to tafamidis 80 or 20 mg; 2:1) and all patients were subsequently switched to high-dose tafamidis. All-cause mortality was assessed in ATTR-ACT combined with the LTE (median follow-up 51 months). In ATTR-ACT, the combination of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations over 30 months was significantly reduced with tafamidis 80mg (P = 0.0030) and 20mg (P = 0.0048) vs. placebo. All-cause mortality vs. placebo was reduced with tafamidis 80mg [Cox hazards model (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.690 (0.487–0.979), P = 0.0378] and 20mg [0.715 (0.450–1.137), P = 0.1564]. The mean (standard error) change in N-terminal pro-B-type natriuretic peptide from baseline to Month 30 was −1170.51 (587.31) (P = 0.0468) with tafamidis 80 vs. 20 mg. In ATTR-ACT combined with the LTE there was a significantly greater survival benefit with tafamidis 80 vs. 20 mg [0.700 (0.501–0.979), P = 0.0374]. Incidence of adverse events in both tafamidis doses were comparable to placebo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Conclusion Tafamidis, both 80 and 20mg, effectively reduced mortality and cardiovascular-related hospitalizations in patients with ATTR-CM. The longer-term survival data and the lack of dose-related safety concerns support tafamidis 80mg as the optimal dose. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01994889; NCT02791230post-print369 K

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: A pluralogue part 2: Issues of conservatism and pragmatism in psychiatric diagnosis

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM – whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article took up the first two questions. Part II will take up the second two questions. Question 3 deals with the question as to whether DSM-V should assume a conservative or assertive posture in making changes from DSM-IV. That question in turn breaks down into discussion of diagnoses that depend on, and aim toward, empirical, scientific validation, and diagnoses that are more value-laden and less amenable to scientific validation. Question 4 takes up the role of pragmatic consideration in a psychiatric nosology, whether the purely empirical considerations need to be tempered by considerations of practical consequence. As in Part 1 of this article, the general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances

The six most essential questions in psychiatric diagnosis: a pluralogue part 1: conceptual and definitional issues in psychiatric diagnosis

In face of the multiple controversies surrounding the DSM process in general and the development of DSM-5 in particular, we have organized a discussion around what we consider six essential questions in further work on the DSM. The six questions involve: 1) the nature of a mental disorder; 2) the definition of mental disorder; 3) the issue of whether, in the current state of psychiatric science, DSM-5 should assume a cautious, conservative posture or an assertive, transformative posture; 4) the role of pragmatic considerations in the construction of DSM-5; 5) the issue of utility of the DSM - whether DSM-III and IV have been designed more for clinicians or researchers, and how this conflict should be dealt with in the new manual; and 6) the possibility and advisability, given all the problems with DSM-III and IV, of designing a different diagnostic system. Part I of this article will take up the first two questions. With the first question, invited commentators express a range of opinion regarding the nature of psychiatric disorders, loosely divided into a realist position that the diagnostic categories represent real diseases that we can accurately name and know with our perceptual abilities, a middle, nominalist position that psychiatric disorders do exist in the real world but that our diagnostic categories are constructs that may or may not accurately represent the disorders out there, and finally a purely constructivist position that the diagnostic categories are simply constructs with no evidence of psychiatric disorders in the real world. The second question again offers a range of opinion as to how we should define a mental or psychiatric disorder, including the possibility that we should not try to formulate a definition. The general introduction, as well as the introductions and conclusions for the specific questions, are written by James Phillips, and the responses to commentaries are written by Allen Frances