Conectar
The over 14 million African children who are HIV-exposed but uninfected (CHEU) are at risk for poor health outcomes, including neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism; however, no study to date has examined autism in CHEU in Africa, where the vast majority of these children live. Scalable diagnostic and neurobehavioural tools, including powerful, low-cost approaches such as eye-tracking, for detection and study of mechanistic neural processes are necessary to advance autism research in these settings. The objective of this study is to examine autism diagnostic outcomes and eye-tracking biomarkers in relation to CHEU while at the same time building capacity for neuro-health research in Kenya.
This study will leverage a longitudinally assessed cohort of CHEU and children who are HIV-unexposed and uninfected (CHUU) with well characterised HIV-related and contextual exposures. We will first determine and compare autism diagnostic outcomes between young CHEU and CHUU across a large cohort (n=850) of Kenyan children using research-grade autism assessment tools, and, second, determine whether neurobehavioural eye-tracking markers predict autism outcomes across this cohort.
Human subjects approvals have been obtained from Moi University Institutional Review and Ethics Committee (IREC; IREC/909/2024; Approval #0004835), Kenya’s National Commission for Science, Technology and Innovation (NACOSTI; Reference #NACOSTI/P/25/415028), the Institutional Review Board of the Indiana University School of Medicine (Protocol #23171), with reliance agreements executed with Purdue University and Boston University. Dissemination of findings will occur through multiple channels within the research and clinical community, including peer-reviewed journal publications and conference abstracts and presentations. As part of capacity building efforts, the research team will also communicate study results to policy makers, the lay public and other health systems involved in the care of young children with disabilities via study-hosted workshops and conferences.
by Gianluigi Serio, Consiglia Pacelli, Claudia Piccoli, Nazzareno Capitanio, Giuseppe Cibelli, Anna Antonia Valenzano, Francesca Landini, Leonardo Carlucci, Paola Palladino
The ketogenic diet (KD) is a low-carbohydrate diet that induces and sustains a ketosis state and minimizes somatic glucose levels. Several psychological studies have described the positive effects of ketosis on cognitive functions for a wide range of neuropsychiatric conditions (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease; epilepsy), leading to greater interest in the KD today. However, the psychological and cognitive effects of inducing ketosis via diet remain unclear, especially in healthy people. From an initial pool of thirty participants, eight undergraduate students performed a cognitive assessment before (baseline) and after three weeks (follow-up) of an isocaloric ketogenic diet. Several neuropsychological measures and psychometric tests have been administered to investigate psychological chronotype, sleep quality, eating habits, anxiety and cognitive components of attention, inhibition, and memory. Non-parametric Bayesian analysis showed that the ketogenic diet affected cognitive functions. Participants performed cognitive tests faster at follow-up than at baseline, showing improvements in visual-motor cognitive and processing speed components. However, they were less accurate on working memory tasks, suggesting a decreasing performance of higher cognitive functions. Finally, no differences in anxiety levels were found between baseline and follow-up. The results could have significant implications for identifying specific cognitive models of students based on specific lifestyle habits and nutritional patterns, allowing the implementation of targeted interventions to improve university learning conditions.Cardiovascular (CV) diseases are associated with adverse outcomes. However, attention has typically focused on outcomes considered relevant by doctors, whereas the potential gap in perception and relative importance of outcomes that may exist between patients and doctors has been scarcely explored. Evidence available reports the views of either patients or doctors alone, and data are analysed in aggregate. We investigated this issue by surveying for the first time patients’ and doctors’ opinions simultaneously, on a one-to-one basis.
Survey involving patients with different CV diseases. Each patient and their attending doctor were asked to simultaneously but independently gauge the importance each attached to a predetermined set of outcomes, filling out disease-specific questionnaires. Results were analysed by compositional analysis.
Inpatients and outpatients being seen by cardiologists and internal medicine specialists at hospitals affiliated with the National Health System in Umbria, Italy.
All-comer patients, presenting with one of the following conditions: atrial fibrillation (AF), myocardial infarction (MI), heart failure (HF) or considered at high CV risk.
Importance attached to outcomes relative to life path, quality of life, future clinical events.
From 337 paired questionnaires returned, significant differences between patients’ and doctors’ perspectives emerged. Specifically: (1) patients with AF were significantly less concerned about the risk of stroke than doctors; (2) worsening of HF was a greater concern for doctors than patients, whereas patients weighed the risk of disability more; (3) patients with a previous MI, or at high CV risk, weighed the risk of hospitalisation less relevant than doctors, but were significantly more concerned about the risk of disability.
Simultaneous, one-to-one assessment of patients’ and doctors’ opinion shows remarkable differences between patients’ perception and physicians’ judgement concerning the relevance of major CV outcomes. Appreciation and sharing of these issues may inform better tailoring of cardiac care.
FreshRSS 