Mixed Topics

To the Editor:

We read with interest the Cutis article by Dobkin et al¹ (Cutis. 2022;109:218-220) regarding guidelines for inpatient and emergency department dermatology consultations. We agree with the authors that dermatology training is lacking in other medical specialties, which makes it challenging for teams to assess the appropriateness of a dermatology consultation in the inpatient setting. Inpatient dermatology consultation can be utilized in a hospital system to aid in rapid and accurate diagnosis, avoid inappropriate therapies, and decrease length of stay² and readmission rates³ while providing education to the primary teams. This is precisely why in many instances the availability of inpatient dermatology consultation is so important because nondermatologists often are unable to determine whether a rash is life-threatening, benign, or something in between. From the perspective of dermatology hospitalists, there is room for improvement in the flowchart Dobkin et al¹ presented to guide inpatient dermatology consultation.

To have a productive relationship with our internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, psychiatry, and other hospital-based colleagues, we must keep an open mind when a consultation is received. We feel that the flowchart proposed by Dobkin et al¹ presents too narrow a viewpoint on the utility of inpatient dermatology. It rests on assertions that other teams will be able to determine the appropriate dermatologic diagnosis without involving a dermatologist, which often is not the case.

We disagree with several recommendations in the flowchart, the first being the assertion that patients who are “hemodynamically unstable due to [a] nondermatologic problem (eg, intubated on pressors, febrile, and hypotensive)” are not appropriate for inpatient dermatology consultation.¹ Although dermatologists do not commonly encounter patients with critical illness in the outpatient clinic, dermatology consultation can be extremely helpful and even lifesaving in the inpatient setting. It is unrealistic to expect the primary teams to know whether cutaneous manifestations potentially could be related to the patient’s overall clinical picture. On the contrary, we would encourage the primary team in charge of a hemodynamically unstable patient to consult dermatology at the first sign of an unexplained rash. Take for example an acutely ill patient who develops retiform purpura. There are well-established dermatology guidelines for the workup of retiform purpura,⁴ including prompt biopsy and assessment of broad, potentially life-threatening differential diagnoses from calciphylaxis to angioinvasive fungal infection. In this scenario, the dermatology consultant may render the correct diagnosis and recommend immediate treatment that could be lifesaving.

Secondly, we do not agree with the recommendation that a patient in hospice care is not appropriate for inpatient dermatology consultation. Patients receiving hospice or palliative care have high rates of potentially symptomatic cutaneous diseases,⁵ including intertrigo and dermatitis—comprising stasis, seborrheic, and contact dermatitis.⁶ Although aggressive intervention for asymptomatic benign or malignant skin conditions may not be in line with their goals of care, an inpatient dermatology consultation can reduce symptoms and improve quality of life. This population also is one that is unlikely to be able to attend an outpatient dermatology clinic appointment and therefore are good candidates for inpatient consultation.

Lastly, we want to highlight the difference between a stable chronic dermatologic disease and an acute flare that may occur while a patient is hospitalized, regardless of whether it is the reason for admission. For example, a patient with psoriasis affecting limited body surface area who is hospitalized for a myocardial infarction is not appropriate for a dermatology consultation. However, if that same patient develops erythroderma while they are hospitalized for cardiac monitoring, it would certainly be appropriate for dermatology to be consulted. Additionally, there are times when a chronic skin disease is the reason for hospitalization; dermatology, although technically a consulting service, would be the primary decision-maker for the patient’s care in this situation. In these scenarios, it is important for the patient to be able to establish care for long-term outpatient management of their condition; however, it is prudent to involve dermatology while the patient is acutely hospitalized to guide their treatment plan until they are able to see a dermatologist after discharge.

In conclusion, we believe that hospital dermatology is a valuable tool that can be utilized in many different scenarios. Although there are certainly situations more appropriate for outpatient dermatology referral, we would caution against overly simplified algorithms that could discourage valuable inpatient dermatology consultations. It often is worth a conversation with your dermatology consultant (when available at an institution) to determine the best course of action for each patient. Additionally, we recognize the need for more formalized guidelines on when to pursue inpatient dermatology consultation. We are members of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and encourage readers to reference their website, which provides additional resources on inpatient dermatology (https://societydermatologyhospitalists.com/inpatient-dermatology-literature/).

 

 

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the letter in response to our commentary on the appropriateness of inpatient dermatology consultations. It is the continued refining and re-evaluation of concepts such as these that allow our field to grow and improve knowledge and patient care.

We sought to provide a nonpatronizing yet simple consultation flowchart that would help guide triage of patients in need or not in need of dermatologic evaluation by the inpatient teams. Understandably, the impressions of our flowchart have been variable based on different readers’ medical backgrounds and experiences. It is certainly possible that our flowchart lacked certain exceptions and oversimplified certain concepts, and we welcome further refining of this flowchart to better guide inpatient dermatology consultations.

We do, however, disagree that the primary team would not know whether a patient is intubated in the intensive care unit for a dermatology reason. If the patient is in such a status, it would be pertinent for the primary team to conduct a timely workup that could include consultations until a diagnosis is made. We were not implying that every dermatology consultation in the intensive care unit is unwarranted, especially if it can lead to a primary dermatologic diagnosis. We do believe that a thorough history could elicit an allergy or other chronic skin condition that could save resources and spending within a hospital. Likewise, psoriasis comes in many different presentations, and although we do not believe a consultation for chronic psoriatic plaques is appropriate in the hospital, it is absolutely appropriate for a patient who is erythrodermic from any cause.

Our flowchart was intended to be the first step to providing education on when consultations are appropriate, and further refinement will be necessary.

Hershel Dobkin, MD; Timothy Blackwell, BS; Robin Ashinoff, MD

Drs. Dobkin and Ashinoff are from Hackensack University Medical Center, New Jersey. Mr. Blackwell is from the Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, New Jersey.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Hershel Dobkin, MD, Hackensack University Medical Center, 30 Prospect Ave, Hackensack, NJ 07601 (hersheldobkinpublic@gmail.com).

To the Editor:

We read with interest the Cutis article by Dobkin et al¹ (Cutis. 2022;109:218-220) regarding guidelines for inpatient and emergency department dermatology consultations. We agree with the authors that dermatology training is lacking in other medical specialties, which makes it challenging for teams to assess the appropriateness of a dermatology consultation in the inpatient setting. Inpatient dermatology consultation can be utilized in a hospital system to aid in rapid and accurate diagnosis, avoid inappropriate therapies, and decrease length of stay² and readmission rates³ while providing education to the primary teams. This is precisely why in many instances the availability of inpatient dermatology consultation is so important because nondermatologists often are unable to determine whether a rash is life-threatening, benign, or something in between. From the perspective of dermatology hospitalists, there is room for improvement in the flowchart Dobkin et al¹ presented to guide inpatient dermatology consultation.

To have a productive relationship with our internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, psychiatry, and other hospital-based colleagues, we must keep an open mind when a consultation is received. We feel that the flowchart proposed by Dobkin et al¹ presents too narrow a viewpoint on the utility of inpatient dermatology. It rests on assertions that other teams will be able to determine the appropriate dermatologic diagnosis without involving a dermatologist, which often is not the case.

We disagree with several recommendations in the flowchart, the first being the assertion that patients who are “hemodynamically unstable due to [a] nondermatologic problem (eg, intubated on pressors, febrile, and hypotensive)” are not appropriate for inpatient dermatology consultation.¹ Although dermatologists do not commonly encounter patients with critical illness in the outpatient clinic, dermatology consultation can be extremely helpful and even lifesaving in the inpatient setting. It is unrealistic to expect the primary teams to know whether cutaneous manifestations potentially could be related to the patient’s overall clinical picture. On the contrary, we would encourage the primary team in charge of a hemodynamically unstable patient to consult dermatology at the first sign of an unexplained rash. Take for example an acutely ill patient who develops retiform purpura. There are well-established dermatology guidelines for the workup of retiform purpura,⁴ including prompt biopsy and assessment of broad, potentially life-threatening differential diagnoses from calciphylaxis to angioinvasive fungal infection. In this scenario, the dermatology consultant may render the correct diagnosis and recommend immediate treatment that could be lifesaving.

Secondly, we do not agree with the recommendation that a patient in hospice care is not appropriate for inpatient dermatology consultation. Patients receiving hospice or palliative care have high rates of potentially symptomatic cutaneous diseases,⁵ including intertrigo and dermatitis—comprising stasis, seborrheic, and contact dermatitis.⁶ Although aggressive intervention for asymptomatic benign or malignant skin conditions may not be in line with their goals of care, an inpatient dermatology consultation can reduce symptoms and improve quality of life. This population also is one that is unlikely to be able to attend an outpatient dermatology clinic appointment and therefore are good candidates for inpatient consultation.

Lastly, we want to highlight the difference between a stable chronic dermatologic disease and an acute flare that may occur while a patient is hospitalized, regardless of whether it is the reason for admission. For example, a patient with psoriasis affecting limited body surface area who is hospitalized for a myocardial infarction is not appropriate for a dermatology consultation. However, if that same patient develops erythroderma while they are hospitalized for cardiac monitoring, it would certainly be appropriate for dermatology to be consulted. Additionally, there are times when a chronic skin disease is the reason for hospitalization; dermatology, although technically a consulting service, would be the primary decision-maker for the patient’s care in this situation. In these scenarios, it is important for the patient to be able to establish care for long-term outpatient management of their condition; however, it is prudent to involve dermatology while the patient is acutely hospitalized to guide their treatment plan until they are able to see a dermatologist after discharge.

In conclusion, we believe that hospital dermatology is a valuable tool that can be utilized in many different scenarios. Although there are certainly situations more appropriate for outpatient dermatology referral, we would caution against overly simplified algorithms that could discourage valuable inpatient dermatology consultations. It often is worth a conversation with your dermatology consultant (when available at an institution) to determine the best course of action for each patient. Additionally, we recognize the need for more formalized guidelines on when to pursue inpatient dermatology consultation. We are members of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and encourage readers to reference their website, which provides additional resources on inpatient dermatology (https://societydermatologyhospitalists.com/inpatient-dermatology-literature/).

 

 

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the letter in response to our commentary on the appropriateness of inpatient dermatology consultations. It is the continued refining and re-evaluation of concepts such as these that allow our field to grow and improve knowledge and patient care.

We sought to provide a nonpatronizing yet simple consultation flowchart that would help guide triage of patients in need or not in need of dermatologic evaluation by the inpatient teams. Understandably, the impressions of our flowchart have been variable based on different readers’ medical backgrounds and experiences. It is certainly possible that our flowchart lacked certain exceptions and oversimplified certain concepts, and we welcome further refining of this flowchart to better guide inpatient dermatology consultations.

We do, however, disagree that the primary team would not know whether a patient is intubated in the intensive care unit for a dermatology reason. If the patient is in such a status, it would be pertinent for the primary team to conduct a timely workup that could include consultations until a diagnosis is made. We were not implying that every dermatology consultation in the intensive care unit is unwarranted, especially if it can lead to a primary dermatologic diagnosis. We do believe that a thorough history could elicit an allergy or other chronic skin condition that could save resources and spending within a hospital. Likewise, psoriasis comes in many different presentations, and although we do not believe a consultation for chronic psoriatic plaques is appropriate in the hospital, it is absolutely appropriate for a patient who is erythrodermic from any cause.

Our flowchart was intended to be the first step to providing education on when consultations are appropriate, and further refinement will be necessary.

Hershel Dobkin, MD; Timothy Blackwell, BS; Robin Ashinoff, MD

Drs. Dobkin and Ashinoff are from Hackensack University Medical Center, New Jersey. Mr. Blackwell is from the Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, New Jersey.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Hershel Dobkin, MD, Hackensack University Medical Center, 30 Prospect Ave, Hackensack, NJ 07601 (hersheldobkinpublic@gmail.com).

To the Editor:

We read with interest the Cutis article by Dobkin et al¹ (Cutis. 2022;109:218-220) regarding guidelines for inpatient and emergency department dermatology consultations. We agree with the authors that dermatology training is lacking in other medical specialties, which makes it challenging for teams to assess the appropriateness of a dermatology consultation in the inpatient setting. Inpatient dermatology consultation can be utilized in a hospital system to aid in rapid and accurate diagnosis, avoid inappropriate therapies, and decrease length of stay² and readmission rates³ while providing education to the primary teams. This is precisely why in many instances the availability of inpatient dermatology consultation is so important because nondermatologists often are unable to determine whether a rash is life-threatening, benign, or something in between. From the perspective of dermatology hospitalists, there is room for improvement in the flowchart Dobkin et al¹ presented to guide inpatient dermatology consultation.

To have a productive relationship with our internal medicine, surgery, pediatrics, psychiatry, and other hospital-based colleagues, we must keep an open mind when a consultation is received. We feel that the flowchart proposed by Dobkin et al¹ presents too narrow a viewpoint on the utility of inpatient dermatology. It rests on assertions that other teams will be able to determine the appropriate dermatologic diagnosis without involving a dermatologist, which often is not the case.

We disagree with several recommendations in the flowchart, the first being the assertion that patients who are “hemodynamically unstable due to [a] nondermatologic problem (eg, intubated on pressors, febrile, and hypotensive)” are not appropriate for inpatient dermatology consultation.¹ Although dermatologists do not commonly encounter patients with critical illness in the outpatient clinic, dermatology consultation can be extremely helpful and even lifesaving in the inpatient setting. It is unrealistic to expect the primary teams to know whether cutaneous manifestations potentially could be related to the patient’s overall clinical picture. On the contrary, we would encourage the primary team in charge of a hemodynamically unstable patient to consult dermatology at the first sign of an unexplained rash. Take for example an acutely ill patient who develops retiform purpura. There are well-established dermatology guidelines for the workup of retiform purpura,⁴ including prompt biopsy and assessment of broad, potentially life-threatening differential diagnoses from calciphylaxis to angioinvasive fungal infection. In this scenario, the dermatology consultant may render the correct diagnosis and recommend immediate treatment that could be lifesaving.

Secondly, we do not agree with the recommendation that a patient in hospice care is not appropriate for inpatient dermatology consultation. Patients receiving hospice or palliative care have high rates of potentially symptomatic cutaneous diseases,⁵ including intertrigo and dermatitis—comprising stasis, seborrheic, and contact dermatitis.⁶ Although aggressive intervention for asymptomatic benign or malignant skin conditions may not be in line with their goals of care, an inpatient dermatology consultation can reduce symptoms and improve quality of life. This population also is one that is unlikely to be able to attend an outpatient dermatology clinic appointment and therefore are good candidates for inpatient consultation.

Lastly, we want to highlight the difference between a stable chronic dermatologic disease and an acute flare that may occur while a patient is hospitalized, regardless of whether it is the reason for admission. For example, a patient with psoriasis affecting limited body surface area who is hospitalized for a myocardial infarction is not appropriate for a dermatology consultation. However, if that same patient develops erythroderma while they are hospitalized for cardiac monitoring, it would certainly be appropriate for dermatology to be consulted. Additionally, there are times when a chronic skin disease is the reason for hospitalization; dermatology, although technically a consulting service, would be the primary decision-maker for the patient’s care in this situation. In these scenarios, it is important for the patient to be able to establish care for long-term outpatient management of their condition; however, it is prudent to involve dermatology while the patient is acutely hospitalized to guide their treatment plan until they are able to see a dermatologist after discharge.

In conclusion, we believe that hospital dermatology is a valuable tool that can be utilized in many different scenarios. Although there are certainly situations more appropriate for outpatient dermatology referral, we would caution against overly simplified algorithms that could discourage valuable inpatient dermatology consultations. It often is worth a conversation with your dermatology consultant (when available at an institution) to determine the best course of action for each patient. Additionally, we recognize the need for more formalized guidelines on when to pursue inpatient dermatology consultation. We are members of the Society of Dermatology Hospitalists and encourage readers to reference their website, which provides additional resources on inpatient dermatology (https://societydermatologyhospitalists.com/inpatient-dermatology-literature/).

 

 

Authors’ Response

We appreciate the letter in response to our commentary on the appropriateness of inpatient dermatology consultations. It is the continued refining and re-evaluation of concepts such as these that allow our field to grow and improve knowledge and patient care.

We sought to provide a nonpatronizing yet simple consultation flowchart that would help guide triage of patients in need or not in need of dermatologic evaluation by the inpatient teams. Understandably, the impressions of our flowchart have been variable based on different readers’ medical backgrounds and experiences. It is certainly possible that our flowchart lacked certain exceptions and oversimplified certain concepts, and we welcome further refining of this flowchart to better guide inpatient dermatology consultations.

We do, however, disagree that the primary team would not know whether a patient is intubated in the intensive care unit for a dermatology reason. If the patient is in such a status, it would be pertinent for the primary team to conduct a timely workup that could include consultations until a diagnosis is made. We were not implying that every dermatology consultation in the intensive care unit is unwarranted, especially if it can lead to a primary dermatologic diagnosis. We do believe that a thorough history could elicit an allergy or other chronic skin condition that could save resources and spending within a hospital. Likewise, psoriasis comes in many different presentations, and although we do not believe a consultation for chronic psoriatic plaques is appropriate in the hospital, it is absolutely appropriate for a patient who is erythrodermic from any cause.

Our flowchart was intended to be the first step to providing education on when consultations are appropriate, and further refinement will be necessary.

Hershel Dobkin, MD; Timothy Blackwell, BS; Robin Ashinoff, MD

Drs. Dobkin and Ashinoff are from Hackensack University Medical Center, New Jersey. Mr. Blackwell is from the Rowan University School of Osteopathic Medicine, Stratford, New Jersey.

The authors report no conflict of interest.

Correspondence: Hershel Dobkin, MD, Hackensack University Medical Center, 30 Prospect Ave, Hackensack, NJ 07601 (hersheldobkinpublic@gmail.com).

To the Editor:

Preprint servers allow researchers to post manuscripts before publication in peer-reviewed journals. As of January 2022, 41 public preprint servers accepted medicine/science submissions.¹ We sought to analyze characteristics of dermatology manuscripts in preprint servers and assess preprint publication policies in top dermatology journals.

Thirty-five biology/health sciences preprint servers¹ were searched (March 3 to March 24, 2021) with keywords dermatology, skin, and cutaneous. Preprint server, preprint post date, location, metrics, journal, impact factor (IF), and journal publication date were recorded. Preprint policies of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor of the journal (https://www.scimagojr.com/)—were reviewed. Two-tailed t tests and χ² tests were performed (P<.05).

A total of 1420 articles were posted to 11 preprint servers between June 20, 2007, and February 15, 2021 (Table 1); 377 (27%) were published in peer-reviewed journals, with 350 (93%) of those published within 1 year of preprint post. Preprints were published in 203 journals with a mean IF of 6.2. Growth in preprint posts by year (2007-2020) was exponential (R²=0.78)(Figure). On average, preprints were viewed 424 times (Table 2), with published preprints viewed more often than unpublished preprints (596 vs 362 views)(P<.001). Only 23 of 786 (3%) preprints with comments enabled had feedback. Among the top 20 dermatology journals, 18 (90%) allowed preprints, 1 (5%) evaluated case by case, and 1 (5%) prohibited preprints.

Our study showed exponential growth in dermatology preprints, a low proportion published in peer-reviewed journals with high IFs, and a substantial number of page views for both published and unpublished preprints. Very few preprints had feedback. We found that most of the top 20 dermatology journals accept preprints. An analysis of 61 dermatology articles in medRxiv found only 51% (31/61) of articles were subsequently published.² The low rate of publication may be due to the quality of preprints that do not meet criteria to be published following peer review.

Preprint servers are fairly novel, with a majority launched within the last 5 years.¹ The goal of preprints is to claim conception of an idea, solicit feedback prior to submission for peer review, and expedite research distribution.³ Because preprints are uploaded without peer review, manuscripts may lack quality and accuracy. An analysis of 57 of thelargest preprint servers found that few provided guidelines on authorship, image manipulation, or reporting of study limitations; however, most preprint servers do perform some screening.⁴ medRxiv requires full scientific research reports and absence of obscenity, plagiarism, and patient identifiers. In its first year, medRxiv rejected 34% of 176 submissios; reasons were not disclosed.⁵

The low rate of on-site comments suggests that preprint servers may not be effective for obtaining feedback to improve dermatology manuscripts prior to journal submission. Almost all of the top 20 dermatologyjournals accept preprints. Therefore, dermatologists may use these preprint servers to assert project ideas and disseminate research quickly and freely but may not receive constructive criticism.

Our study is subject to several limitations. Although our search was extensive, it is possible manuscripts were missed. Article metrics also were not available on all servers, and we could not account for accepted articles that were not yet indexed.

There has been a surge in posting of dermatology preprints in recent years. Preprints have not been peer reviewed, and data should be corroborated before incorporating new diagnostics or treatments into clinical practice. Utilization of preprint servers by dermatologists is increasing, but because the impact is still unknown, further studies on accuracy and reliability of preprints are warranted.

To the Editor:

Preprint servers allow researchers to post manuscripts before publication in peer-reviewed journals. As of January 2022, 41 public preprint servers accepted medicine/science submissions.¹ We sought to analyze characteristics of dermatology manuscripts in preprint servers and assess preprint publication policies in top dermatology journals.

Thirty-five biology/health sciences preprint servers¹ were searched (March 3 to March 24, 2021) with keywords dermatology, skin, and cutaneous. Preprint server, preprint post date, location, metrics, journal, impact factor (IF), and journal publication date were recorded. Preprint policies of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor of the journal (https://www.scimagojr.com/)—were reviewed. Two-tailed t tests and χ² tests were performed (P<.05).

A total of 1420 articles were posted to 11 preprint servers between June 20, 2007, and February 15, 2021 (Table 1); 377 (27%) were published in peer-reviewed journals, with 350 (93%) of those published within 1 year of preprint post. Preprints were published in 203 journals with a mean IF of 6.2. Growth in preprint posts by year (2007-2020) was exponential (R²=0.78)(Figure). On average, preprints were viewed 424 times (Table 2), with published preprints viewed more often than unpublished preprints (596 vs 362 views)(P<.001). Only 23 of 786 (3%) preprints with comments enabled had feedback. Among the top 20 dermatology journals, 18 (90%) allowed preprints, 1 (5%) evaluated case by case, and 1 (5%) prohibited preprints.

Our study showed exponential growth in dermatology preprints, a low proportion published in peer-reviewed journals with high IFs, and a substantial number of page views for both published and unpublished preprints. Very few preprints had feedback. We found that most of the top 20 dermatology journals accept preprints. An analysis of 61 dermatology articles in medRxiv found only 51% (31/61) of articles were subsequently published.² The low rate of publication may be due to the quality of preprints that do not meet criteria to be published following peer review.

Preprint servers are fairly novel, with a majority launched within the last 5 years.¹ The goal of preprints is to claim conception of an idea, solicit feedback prior to submission for peer review, and expedite research distribution.³ Because preprints are uploaded without peer review, manuscripts may lack quality and accuracy. An analysis of 57 of thelargest preprint servers found that few provided guidelines on authorship, image manipulation, or reporting of study limitations; however, most preprint servers do perform some screening.⁴ medRxiv requires full scientific research reports and absence of obscenity, plagiarism, and patient identifiers. In its first year, medRxiv rejected 34% of 176 submissios; reasons were not disclosed.⁵

The low rate of on-site comments suggests that preprint servers may not be effective for obtaining feedback to improve dermatology manuscripts prior to journal submission. Almost all of the top 20 dermatologyjournals accept preprints. Therefore, dermatologists may use these preprint servers to assert project ideas and disseminate research quickly and freely but may not receive constructive criticism.

Our study is subject to several limitations. Although our search was extensive, it is possible manuscripts were missed. Article metrics also were not available on all servers, and we could not account for accepted articles that were not yet indexed.

There has been a surge in posting of dermatology preprints in recent years. Preprints have not been peer reviewed, and data should be corroborated before incorporating new diagnostics or treatments into clinical practice. Utilization of preprint servers by dermatologists is increasing, but because the impact is still unknown, further studies on accuracy and reliability of preprints are warranted.

To the Editor:

Preprint servers allow researchers to post manuscripts before publication in peer-reviewed journals. As of January 2022, 41 public preprint servers accepted medicine/science submissions.¹ We sought to analyze characteristics of dermatology manuscripts in preprint servers and assess preprint publication policies in top dermatology journals.

Thirty-five biology/health sciences preprint servers¹ were searched (March 3 to March 24, 2021) with keywords dermatology, skin, and cutaneous. Preprint server, preprint post date, location, metrics, journal, impact factor (IF), and journal publication date were recorded. Preprint policies of the top 20 dermatology journals—determined by impact factor of the journal (https://www.scimagojr.com/)—were reviewed. Two-tailed t tests and χ² tests were performed (P<.05).

A total of 1420 articles were posted to 11 preprint servers between June 20, 2007, and February 15, 2021 (Table 1); 377 (27%) were published in peer-reviewed journals, with 350 (93%) of those published within 1 year of preprint post. Preprints were published in 203 journals with a mean IF of 6.2. Growth in preprint posts by year (2007-2020) was exponential (R²=0.78)(Figure). On average, preprints were viewed 424 times (Table 2), with published preprints viewed more often than unpublished preprints (596 vs 362 views)(P<.001). Only 23 of 786 (3%) preprints with comments enabled had feedback. Among the top 20 dermatology journals, 18 (90%) allowed preprints, 1 (5%) evaluated case by case, and 1 (5%) prohibited preprints.

Our study showed exponential growth in dermatology preprints, a low proportion published in peer-reviewed journals with high IFs, and a substantial number of page views for both published and unpublished preprints. Very few preprints had feedback. We found that most of the top 20 dermatology journals accept preprints. An analysis of 61 dermatology articles in medRxiv found only 51% (31/61) of articles were subsequently published.² The low rate of publication may be due to the quality of preprints that do not meet criteria to be published following peer review.

Preprint servers are fairly novel, with a majority launched within the last 5 years.¹ The goal of preprints is to claim conception of an idea, solicit feedback prior to submission for peer review, and expedite research distribution.³ Because preprints are uploaded without peer review, manuscripts may lack quality and accuracy. An analysis of 57 of thelargest preprint servers found that few provided guidelines on authorship, image manipulation, or reporting of study limitations; however, most preprint servers do perform some screening.⁴ medRxiv requires full scientific research reports and absence of obscenity, plagiarism, and patient identifiers. In its first year, medRxiv rejected 34% of 176 submissios; reasons were not disclosed.⁵

The low rate of on-site comments suggests that preprint servers may not be effective for obtaining feedback to improve dermatology manuscripts prior to journal submission. Almost all of the top 20 dermatologyjournals accept preprints. Therefore, dermatologists may use these preprint servers to assert project ideas and disseminate research quickly and freely but may not receive constructive criticism.

Our study is subject to several limitations. Although our search was extensive, it is possible manuscripts were missed. Article metrics also were not available on all servers, and we could not account for accepted articles that were not yet indexed.

There has been a surge in posting of dermatology preprints in recent years. Preprints have not been peer reviewed, and data should be corroborated before incorporating new diagnostics or treatments into clinical practice. Utilization of preprint servers by dermatologists is increasing, but because the impact is still unknown, further studies on accuracy and reliability of preprints are warranted.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me

You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.

This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.

We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.

Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.

Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?

Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.

Xiaoning Jiang and Chengzhi Shi

Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.

The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.

Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
 

With age does not come wisdom

We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.

It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.

That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.

In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
 

Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes

Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?

Rawpixel

Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.

People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.

Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.

The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.

Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me

You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.

This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.

We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.

Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.

Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?

Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.

Xiaoning Jiang and Chengzhi Shi

Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.

The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.

Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
 

With age does not come wisdom

We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.

It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.

That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.

In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
 

Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes

Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?

Rawpixel

Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.

People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.

Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.

The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.

Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.

Sticks and stones may break my bones, but clots will never hurt me

You’ve probably seen “Ghostbusters” or at least heard the theme song. Maybe you even know about the Discovery Channel’s “Mythbusters.” But now there’s a new buster in town, and it eats platitudes for breakfast: Meet Cliche-busters, LOTME’s new recurring feature.

This week, Cliche-busters takes on “Two wrongs don’t make a right.” Yum.

We start with blood clots, which are bad. Doctors go to a lot of trouble to get rid of the things because they are dangerous. A blood clot, then, is a bodily function gone wrong.

Tornadoes are also bad. Out there in the world, these violently rotating columns of air can destroy buildings, toss large objects long distances, and inspire mediocre action movies. They are examples of nature gone wrong.

Seemingly, these two wrongs – blood clots and tornadoes – are not about to make a right. Has Cliche-busters bitten off more than it can chew?

Not according to Xiaoning Jiang of North Carolina State University, Raleigh, and his team of researchers. They’ve figured out a way to use a tiny ultrasonic tornado to break down clots in the brain. “Our new work uses vortex ultrasound, where the ultrasound waves have a helical wavefront. In other words, the ultrasound is swirling as it moves forward,” he said in a statement from the university.

Xiaoning Jiang and Chengzhi Shi

Their new tool’s single transducer is small enough to fit in a catheter, and its “vortex ultrasound-induced shear force has the potential to break down clots safely and improve the efficacy of thrombolysis,” they explained in the open-access journal Research.

The investigators used cow blood in a 3D-printed model of the cerebral venous sinus for the proof-of-concept study and were able to dissolve an acute blood clot in less than 30 minutes, compared with the 15-30 hours needed with a pharmaceutical intervention, according to the written statement.

Can you hear the sound of two wrongs making a right? We can, and that closes the curtain on this cliche.
 

With age does not come wisdom

We’ve all met this person before. The sort of person who takes a 10-minute IQ test on a shifty-looking website and then proceeds to brag about a 180 IQ until the heat death of the universe. The one who worships at the altar of Mensa. Yeah, that guy. They’re never as smart as they think they are, but they’ll never, ever admit it.

It’s not exactly a secret that IQ as a measurement of intelligence is highly overrated. A lot of scientists doubt we should bother measuring it at all. That said, a higher IQ is associated with greater success in academic and financial endeavors, so it’s not absolutely worthless. And if we’re stuck with it, we may as well study it.

That brings us neatly to new research published in Brain and Behavior. Most studies into IQ and self-estimated intelligence have focused on younger adults, and the author of this study was curious if the stereotype of young men inflating their IQ, a stereotype backed up by research, persisted into older adulthood. So she conducted a survey of 159 younger adults and 152 older adults to find out.

Wavebreakmedia Ltd/Thinkstock

The results in younger adults were not surprising: Younger men overestimated their actual IQ by 5-15 points, which tracks with previous research. We’re in for a bit of a surprise with the older adults, though, because the older men were more humble about their intelligence, with their estimation falling in line with their actual IQ. Older women, however, not so much. In fact, they overestimated their intelligence just as much as the younger men.

In addition, older women who perceived themselves as more attractive reported the highest self-estimated intelligence of all. That isn’t how intelligence works, but honestly, if Grandma’s out and about thinking she looks good and has the brains to go and win “Jeopardy!” do you really have the heart to tell her otherwise?
 

Fight temptation with empathy … and shoes

Relationships are tough. They all go through their respective ups and downs, but what happens when one person is feeling so down in the partnership that cheating comes to mind? Is there any way to stop it from happening?

Rawpixel

Well, a recent study suggests that there is, and it’s as simple as putting yourself in the other person’s shoes. By observing 408 heterosexual, monogamous participants in a series of experiments, psychologists in Israel and New York found that practicing empathy and “perspective taking” doesn’t necessarily stop people from cheating but it does reduces the desire.

People cheat on their significant others for many different reasons – men for a lack of sexual needs being met and women for shortfalls regarding emotional needs – but prioritizing the other person’s perspective gives the idea of being unfaithful a different view and could make one act differently, the investigators said.

Perspective taking also promotes other positive attributes to the relationship, such as the promotion of compassion and the feeling of being understood, lead author Gurit Birnbaum of Reichman University in Herzliya, Israel, said in a written statement. These things ultimately help couples navigate the rough patches and strengthen bonds, making them even less likely to cheat.

The researchers noted that even people in satisfying relationships do cheat, but this approach does encourage people to stop and think before they act. It could ultimately prevent what might be a huge mistake.

Think before they act. Hmm, that’s kind of like look before they leap, right? Sounds like a job for the Cliche-busters.

A network of neural connections is linked to six psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), depression, addiction, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and anxiety, new research shows.

Investigators used coordinate and lesion network mapping to assess whether there was a shared brain network common to multiple psychiatric disorders. In a meta-analysis of almost 200 studies encompassing more than 15,000 individuals, they found that atrophy coordinates across these six psychiatric conditions all mapped to a common brain network.

Moreover, lesion damage to this network in patients with penetrating head trauma correlated with the number of psychiatric illnesses that the patients were diagnosed with post trauma.

The findings have “bigger-picture potential implications,” lead author Joseph Taylor, MD, PhD, medical director of transcranial magnetic stimulation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics, Boston, told this news organization.

“In psychiatry, we talk about symptoms and define our disorders based on symptom checklists, which are fairly reliable but don’t have neurobiological underpinnings,” said Dr. Taylor, who is also an associate psychiatrist in Brigham’s department of psychiatry.

By contrast, “in neurology, we ask: ‘Where is the lesion?’ Studying brain networks could potentially help us diagnose and treat people with psychiatric illness more effectively, just as we treat neurological disorders,” he added.

The findings were published online in Nature Human Behavior.
 

Beyond symptom checklists

Dr. Taylor noted that, in the field of psychiatry, “we often study disorders in isolation,” such as generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

“But what see clinically is that half of patients meet the criteria for more than one psychiatric disorder,” he said. “It can be difficult to diagnose and treat these patients, and there are worse treatment outcomes.”

There is also a “discrepancy” between how these disorders are studied (one at a time) and how patients are treated in clinic, Dr. Taylor noted. And there is increasing evidence that psychiatric disorders may share a common neurobiology.

This “highlights the possibility of potentially developing transdiagnostic treatments based on common neurobiology, not just symptom checklists,” Dr. Taylor said.

Prior work “has attempted to map abnormalities to common brain regions rather than to a common brain network,” the investigators wrote. Moreover, “prior studies have rarely tested specificity by comparing psychiatric disorders to other brain disorders.”

In the current study, the researchers used “morphometric brain lesion datasets coupled with a wiring diagram of the human brain to derive a convergent brain network for psychiatric illness.”

They analyzed four large published datasets. Dataset 1 was sourced from an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis (ALE) of whole-brain voxel-based studies that compared patients with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, BD, depression, addiction, OCD, and anxiety to healthy controls (n = 193 studies; 15,892 individuals in total).

Dataset 2 was drawn from published neuroimaging studies involving patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative conditions (n = 72 studies). They reported coordinates regarding which patients with these disorders had more atrophy compared with control persons.

Dataset 3 was sourced from the Vietnam Head Injury study, which followed veterans with and those without penetrating head injuries (n = 194 veterans with injuries). Dataset 4 was sourced from published neurosurgical ablation coordinates for depression.
 

Shared neurobiology

Upon analyzing dataset 1, the researchers found decreased gray matter in the bilateral anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, and parietal operculum – findings that are “consistent with prior work.”

However, fewer than 35% of the studies contributed to any single cluster; and no cluster was specific to psychiatric versus neurodegenerative coordinates (drawn from dataset 2).

On the other hand, coordinate network mapping yielded “more statistically robust” (P < .001) results, which were found in 85% of the studies. “Psychiatric atrophy coordinates were functionally connected to the same network of brain regions,” the researchers reported.

This network was defined by two types of connectivity, positive and negative.

“The topography of this transdiagnostic network was independent of the statistical threshold and specific to psychiatric (vs. neurodegenerative) disorders, with the strongest peak occurring in the posterior parietal cortex (Brodmann Area 7) near the intraparietal sulcus,” the investigators wrote.

When lesions from dataset 3 were overlaid onto the ALE map and the transdiagnostic network in order to evaluate whether damage to either map correlated with number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnosis, results showed no evidence of a correlation between psychiatric comorbidity and damage on the ALE map (Pearson r, 0.02; P = .766).

However, when the same approach was applied to the transdiagnostic network, a statistically significant correlation was found between psychiatric comorbidity and lesion damage (Pearson r, –0.21; P = .01). A multiple regression model showed that the transdiagnostic, but not the ALE, network “independently predicted the number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnoses” (P = .003 vs. P = .1), the investigators reported.

All four neurosurgical ablative targets for psychiatric disorders found on analysis of dataset 4 “intersected” and aligned with the transdiagnostic network.

“The study does not immediately impact clinical practice, but it would be helpful for practicing clinicians to know that psychiatric disorders commonly co-occur and might share common neurobiology and a convergent brain network,” Dr. Taylor said.

“Future work based on our findings could potentially influence clinical trials and clinical practice, especially in the area of brain stimulation,” he added.
 

‘Exciting new targets’

In a comment, Desmond Oathes, PhD, associate director, Center for Neuromodulation and Stress, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the “next step in the science is to combine individual brain imaging, aka, ‘individualized connectomes,’ with these promising group maps to determine something meaningful at the individual patient level.”

Dr. Oathes, who is also a faculty clinician at the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety and was not involved with the study, noted that an open question is whether the brain volume abnormalities/atrophy “can be changed with treatment and in what direction.”

A “strong take-home message from this paper is that brain volume measures from single coordinates are noisy as measures of psychiatric abnormality, whereas network effects seem to be especially sensitive for capturing these effects,” Dr. Oathes said.

The “abnormal networks across these disorders do not fit easily into well-known networks from healthy participants. However, they map well onto other databases relevant to psychiatric disorders and offer exciting new potential targets for prospective treatment studies,” he added.

The investigators received no specific funding for this work. Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oathes reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A network of neural connections is linked to six psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), depression, addiction, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and anxiety, new research shows.

Investigators used coordinate and lesion network mapping to assess whether there was a shared brain network common to multiple psychiatric disorders. In a meta-analysis of almost 200 studies encompassing more than 15,000 individuals, they found that atrophy coordinates across these six psychiatric conditions all mapped to a common brain network.

Moreover, lesion damage to this network in patients with penetrating head trauma correlated with the number of psychiatric illnesses that the patients were diagnosed with post trauma.

The findings have “bigger-picture potential implications,” lead author Joseph Taylor, MD, PhD, medical director of transcranial magnetic stimulation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics, Boston, told this news organization.

“In psychiatry, we talk about symptoms and define our disorders based on symptom checklists, which are fairly reliable but don’t have neurobiological underpinnings,” said Dr. Taylor, who is also an associate psychiatrist in Brigham’s department of psychiatry.

By contrast, “in neurology, we ask: ‘Where is the lesion?’ Studying brain networks could potentially help us diagnose and treat people with psychiatric illness more effectively, just as we treat neurological disorders,” he added.

The findings were published online in Nature Human Behavior.
 

Beyond symptom checklists

Dr. Taylor noted that, in the field of psychiatry, “we often study disorders in isolation,” such as generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

“But what see clinically is that half of patients meet the criteria for more than one psychiatric disorder,” he said. “It can be difficult to diagnose and treat these patients, and there are worse treatment outcomes.”

There is also a “discrepancy” between how these disorders are studied (one at a time) and how patients are treated in clinic, Dr. Taylor noted. And there is increasing evidence that psychiatric disorders may share a common neurobiology.

This “highlights the possibility of potentially developing transdiagnostic treatments based on common neurobiology, not just symptom checklists,” Dr. Taylor said.

Prior work “has attempted to map abnormalities to common brain regions rather than to a common brain network,” the investigators wrote. Moreover, “prior studies have rarely tested specificity by comparing psychiatric disorders to other brain disorders.”

In the current study, the researchers used “morphometric brain lesion datasets coupled with a wiring diagram of the human brain to derive a convergent brain network for psychiatric illness.”

They analyzed four large published datasets. Dataset 1 was sourced from an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis (ALE) of whole-brain voxel-based studies that compared patients with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, BD, depression, addiction, OCD, and anxiety to healthy controls (n = 193 studies; 15,892 individuals in total).

Dataset 2 was drawn from published neuroimaging studies involving patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative conditions (n = 72 studies). They reported coordinates regarding which patients with these disorders had more atrophy compared with control persons.

Dataset 3 was sourced from the Vietnam Head Injury study, which followed veterans with and those without penetrating head injuries (n = 194 veterans with injuries). Dataset 4 was sourced from published neurosurgical ablation coordinates for depression.
 

Shared neurobiology

Upon analyzing dataset 1, the researchers found decreased gray matter in the bilateral anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, and parietal operculum – findings that are “consistent with prior work.”

However, fewer than 35% of the studies contributed to any single cluster; and no cluster was specific to psychiatric versus neurodegenerative coordinates (drawn from dataset 2).

On the other hand, coordinate network mapping yielded “more statistically robust” (P < .001) results, which were found in 85% of the studies. “Psychiatric atrophy coordinates were functionally connected to the same network of brain regions,” the researchers reported.

This network was defined by two types of connectivity, positive and negative.

“The topography of this transdiagnostic network was independent of the statistical threshold and specific to psychiatric (vs. neurodegenerative) disorders, with the strongest peak occurring in the posterior parietal cortex (Brodmann Area 7) near the intraparietal sulcus,” the investigators wrote.

When lesions from dataset 3 were overlaid onto the ALE map and the transdiagnostic network in order to evaluate whether damage to either map correlated with number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnosis, results showed no evidence of a correlation between psychiatric comorbidity and damage on the ALE map (Pearson r, 0.02; P = .766).

However, when the same approach was applied to the transdiagnostic network, a statistically significant correlation was found between psychiatric comorbidity and lesion damage (Pearson r, –0.21; P = .01). A multiple regression model showed that the transdiagnostic, but not the ALE, network “independently predicted the number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnoses” (P = .003 vs. P = .1), the investigators reported.

All four neurosurgical ablative targets for psychiatric disorders found on analysis of dataset 4 “intersected” and aligned with the transdiagnostic network.

“The study does not immediately impact clinical practice, but it would be helpful for practicing clinicians to know that psychiatric disorders commonly co-occur and might share common neurobiology and a convergent brain network,” Dr. Taylor said.

“Future work based on our findings could potentially influence clinical trials and clinical practice, especially in the area of brain stimulation,” he added.
 

‘Exciting new targets’

In a comment, Desmond Oathes, PhD, associate director, Center for Neuromodulation and Stress, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the “next step in the science is to combine individual brain imaging, aka, ‘individualized connectomes,’ with these promising group maps to determine something meaningful at the individual patient level.”

Dr. Oathes, who is also a faculty clinician at the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety and was not involved with the study, noted that an open question is whether the brain volume abnormalities/atrophy “can be changed with treatment and in what direction.”

A “strong take-home message from this paper is that brain volume measures from single coordinates are noisy as measures of psychiatric abnormality, whereas network effects seem to be especially sensitive for capturing these effects,” Dr. Oathes said.

The “abnormal networks across these disorders do not fit easily into well-known networks from healthy participants. However, they map well onto other databases relevant to psychiatric disorders and offer exciting new potential targets for prospective treatment studies,” he added.

The investigators received no specific funding for this work. Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oathes reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

A network of neural connections is linked to six psychiatric disorders: schizophrenia, bipolar disorder (BD), depression, addiction, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), and anxiety, new research shows.

Investigators used coordinate and lesion network mapping to assess whether there was a shared brain network common to multiple psychiatric disorders. In a meta-analysis of almost 200 studies encompassing more than 15,000 individuals, they found that atrophy coordinates across these six psychiatric conditions all mapped to a common brain network.

Moreover, lesion damage to this network in patients with penetrating head trauma correlated with the number of psychiatric illnesses that the patients were diagnosed with post trauma.

The findings have “bigger-picture potential implications,” lead author Joseph Taylor, MD, PhD, medical director of transcranial magnetic stimulation at Brigham and Women’s Hospital’s Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics, Boston, told this news organization.

“In psychiatry, we talk about symptoms and define our disorders based on symptom checklists, which are fairly reliable but don’t have neurobiological underpinnings,” said Dr. Taylor, who is also an associate psychiatrist in Brigham’s department of psychiatry.

By contrast, “in neurology, we ask: ‘Where is the lesion?’ Studying brain networks could potentially help us diagnose and treat people with psychiatric illness more effectively, just as we treat neurological disorders,” he added.

The findings were published online in Nature Human Behavior.
 

Beyond symptom checklists

Dr. Taylor noted that, in the field of psychiatry, “we often study disorders in isolation,” such as generalized anxiety disorder and major depressive disorder.

“But what see clinically is that half of patients meet the criteria for more than one psychiatric disorder,” he said. “It can be difficult to diagnose and treat these patients, and there are worse treatment outcomes.”

There is also a “discrepancy” between how these disorders are studied (one at a time) and how patients are treated in clinic, Dr. Taylor noted. And there is increasing evidence that psychiatric disorders may share a common neurobiology.

This “highlights the possibility of potentially developing transdiagnostic treatments based on common neurobiology, not just symptom checklists,” Dr. Taylor said.

Prior work “has attempted to map abnormalities to common brain regions rather than to a common brain network,” the investigators wrote. Moreover, “prior studies have rarely tested specificity by comparing psychiatric disorders to other brain disorders.”

In the current study, the researchers used “morphometric brain lesion datasets coupled with a wiring diagram of the human brain to derive a convergent brain network for psychiatric illness.”

They analyzed four large published datasets. Dataset 1 was sourced from an activation likelihood estimation meta-analysis (ALE) of whole-brain voxel-based studies that compared patients with psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, BD, depression, addiction, OCD, and anxiety to healthy controls (n = 193 studies; 15,892 individuals in total).

Dataset 2 was drawn from published neuroimaging studies involving patients with Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other neurodegenerative conditions (n = 72 studies). They reported coordinates regarding which patients with these disorders had more atrophy compared with control persons.

Dataset 3 was sourced from the Vietnam Head Injury study, which followed veterans with and those without penetrating head injuries (n = 194 veterans with injuries). Dataset 4 was sourced from published neurosurgical ablation coordinates for depression.
 

Shared neurobiology

Upon analyzing dataset 1, the researchers found decreased gray matter in the bilateral anterior insula, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, thalamus, amygdala, hippocampus, and parietal operculum – findings that are “consistent with prior work.”

However, fewer than 35% of the studies contributed to any single cluster; and no cluster was specific to psychiatric versus neurodegenerative coordinates (drawn from dataset 2).

On the other hand, coordinate network mapping yielded “more statistically robust” (P < .001) results, which were found in 85% of the studies. “Psychiatric atrophy coordinates were functionally connected to the same network of brain regions,” the researchers reported.

This network was defined by two types of connectivity, positive and negative.

“The topography of this transdiagnostic network was independent of the statistical threshold and specific to psychiatric (vs. neurodegenerative) disorders, with the strongest peak occurring in the posterior parietal cortex (Brodmann Area 7) near the intraparietal sulcus,” the investigators wrote.

When lesions from dataset 3 were overlaid onto the ALE map and the transdiagnostic network in order to evaluate whether damage to either map correlated with number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnosis, results showed no evidence of a correlation between psychiatric comorbidity and damage on the ALE map (Pearson r, 0.02; P = .766).

However, when the same approach was applied to the transdiagnostic network, a statistically significant correlation was found between psychiatric comorbidity and lesion damage (Pearson r, –0.21; P = .01). A multiple regression model showed that the transdiagnostic, but not the ALE, network “independently predicted the number of post-lesion psychiatric diagnoses” (P = .003 vs. P = .1), the investigators reported.

All four neurosurgical ablative targets for psychiatric disorders found on analysis of dataset 4 “intersected” and aligned with the transdiagnostic network.

“The study does not immediately impact clinical practice, but it would be helpful for practicing clinicians to know that psychiatric disorders commonly co-occur and might share common neurobiology and a convergent brain network,” Dr. Taylor said.

“Future work based on our findings could potentially influence clinical trials and clinical practice, especially in the area of brain stimulation,” he added.
 

‘Exciting new targets’

In a comment, Desmond Oathes, PhD, associate director, Center for Neuromodulation and Stress, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, said the “next step in the science is to combine individual brain imaging, aka, ‘individualized connectomes,’ with these promising group maps to determine something meaningful at the individual patient level.”

Dr. Oathes, who is also a faculty clinician at the Center for the Treatment and Study of Anxiety and was not involved with the study, noted that an open question is whether the brain volume abnormalities/atrophy “can be changed with treatment and in what direction.”

A “strong take-home message from this paper is that brain volume measures from single coordinates are noisy as measures of psychiatric abnormality, whereas network effects seem to be especially sensitive for capturing these effects,” Dr. Oathes said.

The “abnormal networks across these disorders do not fit easily into well-known networks from healthy participants. However, they map well onto other databases relevant to psychiatric disorders and offer exciting new potential targets for prospective treatment studies,” he added.

The investigators received no specific funding for this work. Dr. Taylor reported no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Oathes reported no relevant financial relationships.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Dear friends,

Since the last issue of The New Gastroenterologist, the GI Fellowship Match has occurred and CONGRATULATIONS to the Class of 2026! You’ve all been on an arduous journey to get here, and it’s really time to slow down and soak up as much as you can. For those who did not match, do not give up, because you are still the future of GI!

This issue of TNG is particularly special to me, because it marks my first official selection of articles as I embark on my own TNG journey, and the theme is the future of GI. In the “In Focus” article this quarter, Dr. Eugenia N. Uche-Anya and Dr. Tyler M. Berzin review the vast and emerging advances of artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopy, its role in augmenting patient care, obstacles in incorporating AI into current practice, and the future of AI in gastroenterology and hepatology. One important aspect of developing our future in these technologies includes getting involved with industry. Dr. Raman Muthusamy gives practical tips on developing and navigating relationships with industry, with highlights on understanding intellectual property and conflicts of interest.

Continuing our trek into the future of GI, telemedicine came into the fold with the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is clearly here to stay. Dr. Russ R. Arjal repositions telemedicine as a way to increase access to care and optimize practice revenue, with the aim of improving patient outcomes in the future.

Last, to ground this issue clinically, Dr. Jason Kwon and Dr. Paul T. Kroner review the gastrointestinal, hepatic, and pancreaticobiliary adverse manifestations and management of immune checkpoint inhibitors, especially now that immunotherapies have revolutionized the treatment of cancer. As gastroenterologists, we are and will be seeing more and more of these adverse events.

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (jtrieu23@gmail.com). You may also contact Jillian Schweitzer (jschweitzer@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact: Philipp Bozzini is credited with having developed the first endoscope in 1805, called the Lichtleiter (German for “light conductor”), using a candle as its light source. Adolf Kussmaul, however, developed the first rigid gastroscope in 1868, recruiting a sword-swallower in his first demonstration.


Yours truly,

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Advanced Endoscopy Fellow
Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Dear friends,

Since the last issue of The New Gastroenterologist, the GI Fellowship Match has occurred and CONGRATULATIONS to the Class of 2026! You’ve all been on an arduous journey to get here, and it’s really time to slow down and soak up as much as you can. For those who did not match, do not give up, because you are still the future of GI!

This issue of TNG is particularly special to me, because it marks my first official selection of articles as I embark on my own TNG journey, and the theme is the future of GI. In the “In Focus” article this quarter, Dr. Eugenia N. Uche-Anya and Dr. Tyler M. Berzin review the vast and emerging advances of artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopy, its role in augmenting patient care, obstacles in incorporating AI into current practice, and the future of AI in gastroenterology and hepatology. One important aspect of developing our future in these technologies includes getting involved with industry. Dr. Raman Muthusamy gives practical tips on developing and navigating relationships with industry, with highlights on understanding intellectual property and conflicts of interest.

Continuing our trek into the future of GI, telemedicine came into the fold with the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is clearly here to stay. Dr. Russ R. Arjal repositions telemedicine as a way to increase access to care and optimize practice revenue, with the aim of improving patient outcomes in the future.

Last, to ground this issue clinically, Dr. Jason Kwon and Dr. Paul T. Kroner review the gastrointestinal, hepatic, and pancreaticobiliary adverse manifestations and management of immune checkpoint inhibitors, especially now that immunotherapies have revolutionized the treatment of cancer. As gastroenterologists, we are and will be seeing more and more of these adverse events.

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (jtrieu23@gmail.com). You may also contact Jillian Schweitzer (jschweitzer@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact: Philipp Bozzini is credited with having developed the first endoscope in 1805, called the Lichtleiter (German for “light conductor”), using a candle as its light source. Adolf Kussmaul, however, developed the first rigid gastroscope in 1868, recruiting a sword-swallower in his first demonstration.


Yours truly,

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Advanced Endoscopy Fellow
Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Dear friends,

Since the last issue of The New Gastroenterologist, the GI Fellowship Match has occurred and CONGRATULATIONS to the Class of 2026! You’ve all been on an arduous journey to get here, and it’s really time to slow down and soak up as much as you can. For those who did not match, do not give up, because you are still the future of GI!

This issue of TNG is particularly special to me, because it marks my first official selection of articles as I embark on my own TNG journey, and the theme is the future of GI. In the “In Focus” article this quarter, Dr. Eugenia N. Uche-Anya and Dr. Tyler M. Berzin review the vast and emerging advances of artificial intelligence (AI) in colonoscopy, its role in augmenting patient care, obstacles in incorporating AI into current practice, and the future of AI in gastroenterology and hepatology. One important aspect of developing our future in these technologies includes getting involved with industry. Dr. Raman Muthusamy gives practical tips on developing and navigating relationships with industry, with highlights on understanding intellectual property and conflicts of interest.

Continuing our trek into the future of GI, telemedicine came into the fold with the COVID-19 pandemic, and it is clearly here to stay. Dr. Russ R. Arjal repositions telemedicine as a way to increase access to care and optimize practice revenue, with the aim of improving patient outcomes in the future.

Last, to ground this issue clinically, Dr. Jason Kwon and Dr. Paul T. Kroner review the gastrointestinal, hepatic, and pancreaticobiliary adverse manifestations and management of immune checkpoint inhibitors, especially now that immunotherapies have revolutionized the treatment of cancer. As gastroenterologists, we are and will be seeing more and more of these adverse events.

If you are interested in contributing or have ideas for future TNG topics, please contact me (jtrieu23@gmail.com). You may also contact Jillian Schweitzer (jschweitzer@gastro.org), managing editor of TNG.

Until next time, I leave you with a historical fun fact: Philipp Bozzini is credited with having developed the first endoscope in 1805, called the Lichtleiter (German for “light conductor”), using a candle as its light source. Adolf Kussmaul, however, developed the first rigid gastroscope in 1868, recruiting a sword-swallower in his first demonstration.


Yours truly,

Judy A. Trieu, MD, MPH
Editor-in-Chief
Advanced Endoscopy Fellow
Division of Gastroenterology & Hepatology
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Innovations in biomedical technology – from modern endoscopic devices and techniques to harnessing the microbiome to prevent and treat disease – have fundamentally changed the way in which we practice medicine and significantly improved the lives of our patients. In our February issue, we are pleased to highlight the launch of AGA’s GI Opportunity Fund, a new investment vehicle that provides AGA members and others a direct pathway to support development of promising, early-stage innovations by funding carefully vetted, cutting-edge start-up companies. We hope you will enjoy learning more about this exciting new initiative, which recently made its first major investment.

In our February Member Spotlight column, we feature Dr. Simon Mathews and his work to bring greater visibility to digital health technologies and their use in gastroenterology and beyond. I want to thank GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Janice Jou for agreeing to spearhead this new column as its section editor – again, we invite you to nominate your colleagues, mentees, and others to be featured in future Member Spotlight columns.

We also highlight several recent papers published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study assessing clinical outcomes and adverse events in patients receiving oral vs. colonic fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) for recurrent C. difficile infection, and another evaluating the cost-effectiveness of earlier colorectal cancer screening in patients with obesity. On the policy front, we summarize GI-relevant portions of the $1.7 trillion FY 2023 Omnibus Appropriations bill, signed into law on Dec. 30, 2022, by President Biden, and assess its impact on Medicare payments, continuation of support for telehealth/virtual care, and NIH-funding. We hope you enjoy reading these and other articles presented in our February issue.
 

Don’t forget to register for DDW 2023, May 6-9, 2023, in Chicago – general registration is now open!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Innovations in biomedical technology – from modern endoscopic devices and techniques to harnessing the microbiome to prevent and treat disease – have fundamentally changed the way in which we practice medicine and significantly improved the lives of our patients. In our February issue, we are pleased to highlight the launch of AGA’s GI Opportunity Fund, a new investment vehicle that provides AGA members and others a direct pathway to support development of promising, early-stage innovations by funding carefully vetted, cutting-edge start-up companies. We hope you will enjoy learning more about this exciting new initiative, which recently made its first major investment.

In our February Member Spotlight column, we feature Dr. Simon Mathews and his work to bring greater visibility to digital health technologies and their use in gastroenterology and beyond. I want to thank GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Janice Jou for agreeing to spearhead this new column as its section editor – again, we invite you to nominate your colleagues, mentees, and others to be featured in future Member Spotlight columns.

We also highlight several recent papers published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study assessing clinical outcomes and adverse events in patients receiving oral vs. colonic fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) for recurrent C. difficile infection, and another evaluating the cost-effectiveness of earlier colorectal cancer screening in patients with obesity. On the policy front, we summarize GI-relevant portions of the $1.7 trillion FY 2023 Omnibus Appropriations bill, signed into law on Dec. 30, 2022, by President Biden, and assess its impact on Medicare payments, continuation of support for telehealth/virtual care, and NIH-funding. We hope you enjoy reading these and other articles presented in our February issue.
 

Don’t forget to register for DDW 2023, May 6-9, 2023, in Chicago – general registration is now open!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Innovations in biomedical technology – from modern endoscopic devices and techniques to harnessing the microbiome to prevent and treat disease – have fundamentally changed the way in which we practice medicine and significantly improved the lives of our patients. In our February issue, we are pleased to highlight the launch of AGA’s GI Opportunity Fund, a new investment vehicle that provides AGA members and others a direct pathway to support development of promising, early-stage innovations by funding carefully vetted, cutting-edge start-up companies. We hope you will enjoy learning more about this exciting new initiative, which recently made its first major investment.

In our February Member Spotlight column, we feature Dr. Simon Mathews and his work to bring greater visibility to digital health technologies and their use in gastroenterology and beyond. I want to thank GIHN Associate Editor Dr. Janice Jou for agreeing to spearhead this new column as its section editor – again, we invite you to nominate your colleagues, mentees, and others to be featured in future Member Spotlight columns.

We also highlight several recent papers published in AGA’s flagship journals, including a study assessing clinical outcomes and adverse events in patients receiving oral vs. colonic fecal microbiota transplant (FMT) for recurrent C. difficile infection, and another evaluating the cost-effectiveness of earlier colorectal cancer screening in patients with obesity. On the policy front, we summarize GI-relevant portions of the $1.7 trillion FY 2023 Omnibus Appropriations bill, signed into law on Dec. 30, 2022, by President Biden, and assess its impact on Medicare payments, continuation of support for telehealth/virtual care, and NIH-funding. We hope you enjoy reading these and other articles presented in our February issue.
 

Don’t forget to register for DDW 2023, May 6-9, 2023, in Chicago – general registration is now open!

Megan A. Adams, MD, JD, MSc
Editor-in-Chief

Gastroenterologist Simon C. Mathews, MD, sees himself as a disciple of patient safety and quality improvement.

“It’s influenced the way I see medicine and the work that I do around identifying quality, not in the conventional context in a hospital or a clinic, but applying that lens to the world of technology,” said Dr. Mathews, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

Bringing greater visibility to digital health technologies is part of his life’s work.

“There is now an expectation that high quality must be part of the development process of these new technologies,” said Dr. Mathews.

In particular, he’d like to see noninvasive diagnostic technologies in the gastroenterology world become more patient-centric.

Bringing somebody into the hospital is often inconvenient and disruptive. The field is heading toward technologies that can be used in the home or in an outpatient setting. “I have some research in that area, and I’d love to see it ultimately reach the patient at the bedside, if possible.”

Dr. Mathews is a member of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology and a previous mentee in the Future Leaders Program.

In an interview, Dr. Mathews discussed his push to validate health technologies in the GI field and to make them more transparent to physicians and patients.

Question: Why did you choose GI? 

Answer: I think the world of gastroenterology offers a tremendous amount of diversity in the way we manage and treat patients. There’s a huge spectrum of disease. There’s also the procedural aspect, which is very different from a lot of other medical specialties. For me particularly, there’s the opportunity to work on technology as it relates to GI, as well as research in that space.

Q: It seems like gastroenterology involves a lot of detective work. Would you say that’s true?

A: When you think of something like abdominal pain or GI symptoms, any place in the body can cause those symptoms to be present. You have to think broadly about all of the contributing factors, the whole patient as it relates to travel, pets, exposures, food, diet. You really can’t be myopic when you think about all the potential causes.

The name of the game is to provide answers whenever possible, but I will settle for getting someone feeling better, even if we don’t have the answer etched in stone.

Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?

A: I work in an academic institution at Johns Hopkins. I really enjoy the direct connection with patients. I’ve switched mostly to a hospital-based practice, which means I’m getting patients at their sickest. It’s really a privilege to provide an opportunity for improvement or support in that context. I also enjoy the teaching and training of the next generation of folks that are going into this field. There’s so much to learn, and I think trying to set that example and teach by doing is a great opportunity, and I really enjoy that as well.

Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you’re doing to address it.A: One of my focus areas on the research front is about providing greater transparency and validation around health technologies. How do patients know which health technologies to use? How do doctors know which ones to recommend or advocate for?

Q: Can you give an example of a technology of concern?

A: Looking at oncology and mobile apps, one study I coauthored in 2021 found that well over half did not meet physician or patient expectations. These were the most popular and highest rated apps available at the time. It shows that there’s a real disconnect between what the end users – the doctors and the patients – want from these solutions and what’s actually being provided.

There’s a flood of different solutions that are out there, and there really isn’t a streamlined way to know, as a clinician or as a patient, which ones really make a difference clinically and which ones are going to be helpful for you. And that’s been the focus of my research – understanding ways to evaluate technologies that are not so burdensome as to be purely in the realm of academics, but to be pragmatic.

Q: Who has had the strongest influence on your life?

A: I would say my spouse. She’s an academic physician at Hopkins. One of the things she has shown me is the importance of finding alignment in what you do professionally with the sort of goals that you have or the values that you hold as an individual. That’s why I’ve done some nontraditional things in my academic career. It’s really been in search of finding that alignment that matches my interests and goals, as opposed to just doing something because it’s a popular thing to do.

Lightning Round

Favorite sport: Soccer

What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it? 80s pop music

Introvert or extrovert? Introvert

Favorite holiday: Christmas

Optimist or pessimist? Realist

Dr. Mathews is on LinkedIn . His health tech blog is Digital Differential.

Gastroenterologist Simon C. Mathews, MD, sees himself as a disciple of patient safety and quality improvement.

“It’s influenced the way I see medicine and the work that I do around identifying quality, not in the conventional context in a hospital or a clinic, but applying that lens to the world of technology,” said Dr. Mathews, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

Bringing greater visibility to digital health technologies is part of his life’s work.

“There is now an expectation that high quality must be part of the development process of these new technologies,” said Dr. Mathews.

In particular, he’d like to see noninvasive diagnostic technologies in the gastroenterology world become more patient-centric.

Bringing somebody into the hospital is often inconvenient and disruptive. The field is heading toward technologies that can be used in the home or in an outpatient setting. “I have some research in that area, and I’d love to see it ultimately reach the patient at the bedside, if possible.”

Dr. Mathews is a member of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology and a previous mentee in the Future Leaders Program.

In an interview, Dr. Mathews discussed his push to validate health technologies in the GI field and to make them more transparent to physicians and patients.

Question: Why did you choose GI? 

Answer: I think the world of gastroenterology offers a tremendous amount of diversity in the way we manage and treat patients. There’s a huge spectrum of disease. There’s also the procedural aspect, which is very different from a lot of other medical specialties. For me particularly, there’s the opportunity to work on technology as it relates to GI, as well as research in that space.

Q: It seems like gastroenterology involves a lot of detective work. Would you say that’s true?

A: When you think of something like abdominal pain or GI symptoms, any place in the body can cause those symptoms to be present. You have to think broadly about all of the contributing factors, the whole patient as it relates to travel, pets, exposures, food, diet. You really can’t be myopic when you think about all the potential causes.

The name of the game is to provide answers whenever possible, but I will settle for getting someone feeling better, even if we don’t have the answer etched in stone.

Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?

A: I work in an academic institution at Johns Hopkins. I really enjoy the direct connection with patients. I’ve switched mostly to a hospital-based practice, which means I’m getting patients at their sickest. It’s really a privilege to provide an opportunity for improvement or support in that context. I also enjoy the teaching and training of the next generation of folks that are going into this field. There’s so much to learn, and I think trying to set that example and teach by doing is a great opportunity, and I really enjoy that as well.

Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you’re doing to address it.A: One of my focus areas on the research front is about providing greater transparency and validation around health technologies. How do patients know which health technologies to use? How do doctors know which ones to recommend or advocate for?

Q: Can you give an example of a technology of concern?

A: Looking at oncology and mobile apps, one study I coauthored in 2021 found that well over half did not meet physician or patient expectations. These were the most popular and highest rated apps available at the time. It shows that there’s a real disconnect between what the end users – the doctors and the patients – want from these solutions and what’s actually being provided.

There’s a flood of different solutions that are out there, and there really isn’t a streamlined way to know, as a clinician or as a patient, which ones really make a difference clinically and which ones are going to be helpful for you. And that’s been the focus of my research – understanding ways to evaluate technologies that are not so burdensome as to be purely in the realm of academics, but to be pragmatic.

Q: Who has had the strongest influence on your life?

A: I would say my spouse. She’s an academic physician at Hopkins. One of the things she has shown me is the importance of finding alignment in what you do professionally with the sort of goals that you have or the values that you hold as an individual. That’s why I’ve done some nontraditional things in my academic career. It’s really been in search of finding that alignment that matches my interests and goals, as opposed to just doing something because it’s a popular thing to do.

Lightning Round

Favorite sport: Soccer

What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it? 80s pop music

Introvert or extrovert? Introvert

Favorite holiday: Christmas

Optimist or pessimist? Realist

Dr. Mathews is on LinkedIn . His health tech blog is Digital Differential.

Gastroenterologist Simon C. Mathews, MD, sees himself as a disciple of patient safety and quality improvement.

“It’s influenced the way I see medicine and the work that I do around identifying quality, not in the conventional context in a hospital or a clinic, but applying that lens to the world of technology,” said Dr. Mathews, assistant professor of medicine at Johns Hopkins Medicine in Baltimore.

Bringing greater visibility to digital health technologies is part of his life’s work.

“There is now an expectation that high quality must be part of the development process of these new technologies,” said Dr. Mathews.

In particular, he’d like to see noninvasive diagnostic technologies in the gastroenterology world become more patient-centric.

Bringing somebody into the hospital is often inconvenient and disruptive. The field is heading toward technologies that can be used in the home or in an outpatient setting. “I have some research in that area, and I’d love to see it ultimately reach the patient at the bedside, if possible.”

Dr. Mathews is a member of the AGA Center for GI Innovation and Technology and a previous mentee in the Future Leaders Program.

In an interview, Dr. Mathews discussed his push to validate health technologies in the GI field and to make them more transparent to physicians and patients.

Question: Why did you choose GI? 

Answer: I think the world of gastroenterology offers a tremendous amount of diversity in the way we manage and treat patients. There’s a huge spectrum of disease. There’s also the procedural aspect, which is very different from a lot of other medical specialties. For me particularly, there’s the opportunity to work on technology as it relates to GI, as well as research in that space.

Q: It seems like gastroenterology involves a lot of detective work. Would you say that’s true?

A: When you think of something like abdominal pain or GI symptoms, any place in the body can cause those symptoms to be present. You have to think broadly about all of the contributing factors, the whole patient as it relates to travel, pets, exposures, food, diet. You really can’t be myopic when you think about all the potential causes.

The name of the game is to provide answers whenever possible, but I will settle for getting someone feeling better, even if we don’t have the answer etched in stone.

Q: What gives you the most joy in your day-to-day practice?

A: I work in an academic institution at Johns Hopkins. I really enjoy the direct connection with patients. I’ve switched mostly to a hospital-based practice, which means I’m getting patients at their sickest. It’s really a privilege to provide an opportunity for improvement or support in that context. I also enjoy the teaching and training of the next generation of folks that are going into this field. There’s so much to learn, and I think trying to set that example and teach by doing is a great opportunity, and I really enjoy that as well.

Q: Describe your biggest practice-related challenge and what you’re doing to address it.A: One of my focus areas on the research front is about providing greater transparency and validation around health technologies. How do patients know which health technologies to use? How do doctors know which ones to recommend or advocate for?

Q: Can you give an example of a technology of concern?

A: Looking at oncology and mobile apps, one study I coauthored in 2021 found that well over half did not meet physician or patient expectations. These were the most popular and highest rated apps available at the time. It shows that there’s a real disconnect between what the end users – the doctors and the patients – want from these solutions and what’s actually being provided.

There’s a flood of different solutions that are out there, and there really isn’t a streamlined way to know, as a clinician or as a patient, which ones really make a difference clinically and which ones are going to be helpful for you. And that’s been the focus of my research – understanding ways to evaluate technologies that are not so burdensome as to be purely in the realm of academics, but to be pragmatic.

Q: Who has had the strongest influence on your life?

A: I would say my spouse. She’s an academic physician at Hopkins. One of the things she has shown me is the importance of finding alignment in what you do professionally with the sort of goals that you have or the values that you hold as an individual. That’s why I’ve done some nontraditional things in my academic career. It’s really been in search of finding that alignment that matches my interests and goals, as opposed to just doing something because it’s a popular thing to do.

Lightning Round

Favorite sport: Soccer

What song do you have to sing along with when you hear it? 80s pop music

Introvert or extrovert? Introvert

Favorite holiday: Christmas

Optimist or pessimist? Realist

Dr. Mathews is on LinkedIn . His health tech blog is Digital Differential.

Adhering to six healthy lifestyle behaviors is linked to slower memory decline in older adults, a large population-based study suggests.

Investigators found that a healthy diet, cognitive activity, regular physical exercise, not smoking, and abstaining from alcohol were significantly linked to slowed cognitive decline irrespective of APOE4 status.

After adjusting for health and socioeconomic factors, investigators found that each individual healthy behavior was associated with a slower-than-average decline in memory over a decade. A healthy diet emerged as the strongest deterrent, followed by cognitive activity and physical exercise.

“A healthy lifestyle is associated with slower memory decline, even in the presence of the APOE4 allele,” study investigators led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, of the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders and the department of neurology, Xuan Wu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, write.

“This study might offer important information to protect older adults against memory decline,” they add.

The study was published online in the BMJ.
 

Preventing memory decline

Memory “continuously declines as people age,” but age-related memory decline is not necessarily a prodrome of dementia and can “merely be senescent forgetfulness,” the investigators note. This can be “reversed or [can] become stable,” instead of progressing to a pathologic state.

Factors affecting memory include aging, APOE4 genotype, chronic diseases, and lifestyle patterns, with lifestyle “receiving increasing attention as a modifiable behavior.”

Nevertheless, few studies have focused on the impact of lifestyle on memory, and those that have are mostly cross-sectional and also “did not consider the interaction between a healthy lifestyle and genetic risk,” the researchers note.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a longitudinal study, known as the China Cognition and Aging Study, that considered genetic risk as well as lifestyle factors.

The study began in 2009 and concluded in 2019. Participants were evaluated and underwent neuropsychological testing in 2012, 2014, 2016, and at the study’s conclusion.

Participants (n = 29,072; mean [SD] age, 72.23 [6.61] years; 48.54% women; 20.43% APOE4 carriers) were required to have normal cognitive function at baseline. Data on those whose condition progressed to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia during the follow-up period were excluded after their diagnosis.

The Mini–Mental State Examination was used to assess global cognitive function. Memory function was assessed using the World Health Organization/University of California, Los Angeles Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

“Lifestyle” consisted of six modifiable factors: physical exercise (weekly frequency and total time), smoking (current, former, or never-smokers), alcohol consumption (never drank, drank occasionally, low to excess drinking, and heavy drinking), diet (daily intake of 12 food items: fruits, vegetables, fish, meat, dairy products, salt, oil, eggs, cereals, legumes, nuts, tea), cognitive activity (writing, reading, playing cards, mahjong, other games), and social contact (participating in meetings, attending parties, visiting friends/relatives, traveling, chatting online).

Participants’ lifestyles were scored on the basis of the number of healthy factors they engaged in.

Important for public health

During the 10-year period, 7,164 participants died, and 3,567 stopped participating.

Participants in the favorable and average groups showed slower memory decline per increased year of age (0.007 [0.005-0.009], P < .001; and 0.002 [0 .000-0.003], P = .033 points higher, respectively), compared with those in the unfavorable group.

Healthy diet had the strongest protective effect on memory.

‘Important, encouraging’ research

In a comment, Severine Sabia, PhD, a senior researcher at the Université Paris Cité, INSERM Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Medicalé, France, called the findings “important and encouraging.”

However, said Dr. Sabia, who was not involved with the study, “there remain important research questions that need to be investigated in order to identify key behaviors: which combination, the cutoff of risk, and when to intervene.”

Future research on prevention “should examine a wider range of possible risk factors” and should also “identify specific exposures associated with the greatest risk, while also considering the risk threshold and age at exposure for each one.”

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Sabia and co-author Archana Singh-Manoux, PhD, note that the risk of cognitive decline and dementia are probably determined by multiple factors.

They liken it to the “multifactorial risk paradigm introduced by the Framingham study,” which has “led to a substantial reduction in cardiovascular disease.” A similar approach could be used with dementia prevention, they suggest.

The authors received support from the Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University for the submitted work. One of the authors received a grant from the French National Research Agency. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sabia received grant funding from the French National Research Agency. Dr. Singh-Manoux received grants from the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adhering to six healthy lifestyle behaviors is linked to slower memory decline in older adults, a large population-based study suggests.

Investigators found that a healthy diet, cognitive activity, regular physical exercise, not smoking, and abstaining from alcohol were significantly linked to slowed cognitive decline irrespective of APOE4 status.

After adjusting for health and socioeconomic factors, investigators found that each individual healthy behavior was associated with a slower-than-average decline in memory over a decade. A healthy diet emerged as the strongest deterrent, followed by cognitive activity and physical exercise.

“A healthy lifestyle is associated with slower memory decline, even in the presence of the APOE4 allele,” study investigators led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, of the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders and the department of neurology, Xuan Wu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, write.

“This study might offer important information to protect older adults against memory decline,” they add.

The study was published online in the BMJ.
 

Preventing memory decline

Memory “continuously declines as people age,” but age-related memory decline is not necessarily a prodrome of dementia and can “merely be senescent forgetfulness,” the investigators note. This can be “reversed or [can] become stable,” instead of progressing to a pathologic state.

Factors affecting memory include aging, APOE4 genotype, chronic diseases, and lifestyle patterns, with lifestyle “receiving increasing attention as a modifiable behavior.”

Nevertheless, few studies have focused on the impact of lifestyle on memory, and those that have are mostly cross-sectional and also “did not consider the interaction between a healthy lifestyle and genetic risk,” the researchers note.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a longitudinal study, known as the China Cognition and Aging Study, that considered genetic risk as well as lifestyle factors.

The study began in 2009 and concluded in 2019. Participants were evaluated and underwent neuropsychological testing in 2012, 2014, 2016, and at the study’s conclusion.

Participants (n = 29,072; mean [SD] age, 72.23 [6.61] years; 48.54% women; 20.43% APOE4 carriers) were required to have normal cognitive function at baseline. Data on those whose condition progressed to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia during the follow-up period were excluded after their diagnosis.

The Mini–Mental State Examination was used to assess global cognitive function. Memory function was assessed using the World Health Organization/University of California, Los Angeles Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

“Lifestyle” consisted of six modifiable factors: physical exercise (weekly frequency and total time), smoking (current, former, or never-smokers), alcohol consumption (never drank, drank occasionally, low to excess drinking, and heavy drinking), diet (daily intake of 12 food items: fruits, vegetables, fish, meat, dairy products, salt, oil, eggs, cereals, legumes, nuts, tea), cognitive activity (writing, reading, playing cards, mahjong, other games), and social contact (participating in meetings, attending parties, visiting friends/relatives, traveling, chatting online).

Participants’ lifestyles were scored on the basis of the number of healthy factors they engaged in.

Important for public health

During the 10-year period, 7,164 participants died, and 3,567 stopped participating.

Participants in the favorable and average groups showed slower memory decline per increased year of age (0.007 [0.005-0.009], P < .001; and 0.002 [0 .000-0.003], P = .033 points higher, respectively), compared with those in the unfavorable group.

Healthy diet had the strongest protective effect on memory.

‘Important, encouraging’ research

In a comment, Severine Sabia, PhD, a senior researcher at the Université Paris Cité, INSERM Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Medicalé, France, called the findings “important and encouraging.”

However, said Dr. Sabia, who was not involved with the study, “there remain important research questions that need to be investigated in order to identify key behaviors: which combination, the cutoff of risk, and when to intervene.”

Future research on prevention “should examine a wider range of possible risk factors” and should also “identify specific exposures associated with the greatest risk, while also considering the risk threshold and age at exposure for each one.”

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Sabia and co-author Archana Singh-Manoux, PhD, note that the risk of cognitive decline and dementia are probably determined by multiple factors.

They liken it to the “multifactorial risk paradigm introduced by the Framingham study,” which has “led to a substantial reduction in cardiovascular disease.” A similar approach could be used with dementia prevention, they suggest.

The authors received support from the Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University for the submitted work. One of the authors received a grant from the French National Research Agency. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sabia received grant funding from the French National Research Agency. Dr. Singh-Manoux received grants from the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Adhering to six healthy lifestyle behaviors is linked to slower memory decline in older adults, a large population-based study suggests.

Investigators found that a healthy diet, cognitive activity, regular physical exercise, not smoking, and abstaining from alcohol were significantly linked to slowed cognitive decline irrespective of APOE4 status.

After adjusting for health and socioeconomic factors, investigators found that each individual healthy behavior was associated with a slower-than-average decline in memory over a decade. A healthy diet emerged as the strongest deterrent, followed by cognitive activity and physical exercise.

“A healthy lifestyle is associated with slower memory decline, even in the presence of the APOE4 allele,” study investigators led by Jianping Jia, MD, PhD, of the Innovation Center for Neurological Disorders and the department of neurology, Xuan Wu Hospital, Capital Medical University, Beijing, write.

“This study might offer important information to protect older adults against memory decline,” they add.

The study was published online in the BMJ.
 

Preventing memory decline

Memory “continuously declines as people age,” but age-related memory decline is not necessarily a prodrome of dementia and can “merely be senescent forgetfulness,” the investigators note. This can be “reversed or [can] become stable,” instead of progressing to a pathologic state.

Factors affecting memory include aging, APOE4 genotype, chronic diseases, and lifestyle patterns, with lifestyle “receiving increasing attention as a modifiable behavior.”

Nevertheless, few studies have focused on the impact of lifestyle on memory, and those that have are mostly cross-sectional and also “did not consider the interaction between a healthy lifestyle and genetic risk,” the researchers note.

To investigate, the researchers conducted a longitudinal study, known as the China Cognition and Aging Study, that considered genetic risk as well as lifestyle factors.

The study began in 2009 and concluded in 2019. Participants were evaluated and underwent neuropsychological testing in 2012, 2014, 2016, and at the study’s conclusion.

Participants (n = 29,072; mean [SD] age, 72.23 [6.61] years; 48.54% women; 20.43% APOE4 carriers) were required to have normal cognitive function at baseline. Data on those whose condition progressed to mild cognitive impairment (MCI) or dementia during the follow-up period were excluded after their diagnosis.

The Mini–Mental State Examination was used to assess global cognitive function. Memory function was assessed using the World Health Organization/University of California, Los Angeles Auditory Verbal Learning Test.

“Lifestyle” consisted of six modifiable factors: physical exercise (weekly frequency and total time), smoking (current, former, or never-smokers), alcohol consumption (never drank, drank occasionally, low to excess drinking, and heavy drinking), diet (daily intake of 12 food items: fruits, vegetables, fish, meat, dairy products, salt, oil, eggs, cereals, legumes, nuts, tea), cognitive activity (writing, reading, playing cards, mahjong, other games), and social contact (participating in meetings, attending parties, visiting friends/relatives, traveling, chatting online).

Participants’ lifestyles were scored on the basis of the number of healthy factors they engaged in.

Important for public health

During the 10-year period, 7,164 participants died, and 3,567 stopped participating.

Participants in the favorable and average groups showed slower memory decline per increased year of age (0.007 [0.005-0.009], P < .001; and 0.002 [0 .000-0.003], P = .033 points higher, respectively), compared with those in the unfavorable group.

Healthy diet had the strongest protective effect on memory.

‘Important, encouraging’ research

In a comment, Severine Sabia, PhD, a senior researcher at the Université Paris Cité, INSERM Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Medicalé, France, called the findings “important and encouraging.”

However, said Dr. Sabia, who was not involved with the study, “there remain important research questions that need to be investigated in order to identify key behaviors: which combination, the cutoff of risk, and when to intervene.”

Future research on prevention “should examine a wider range of possible risk factors” and should also “identify specific exposures associated with the greatest risk, while also considering the risk threshold and age at exposure for each one.”

In an accompanying editorial, Dr. Sabia and co-author Archana Singh-Manoux, PhD, note that the risk of cognitive decline and dementia are probably determined by multiple factors.

They liken it to the “multifactorial risk paradigm introduced by the Framingham study,” which has “led to a substantial reduction in cardiovascular disease.” A similar approach could be used with dementia prevention, they suggest.

The authors received support from the Xuanwu Hospital of Capital Medical University for the submitted work. One of the authors received a grant from the French National Research Agency. The other authors have disclosed no relevant financial relationships. Dr. Sabia received grant funding from the French National Research Agency. Dr. Singh-Manoux received grants from the National Institute on Aging of the National Institutes of Health.

A version of this article first appeared on Medscape.com.

Answer: Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome.

Based on the history of hemangioma resection and vascular lesions in the small intestine, along with typical manifestations of chronic gastrointestinal bleeding, diagnosis of blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome (BRBNS) was made. According to an American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Guideline,¹ for patients with recurrence of small bowel bleeding, endoscopic management could be considered depending on the patient’s clinical course and response to prior therapy. Consequently, injections of lauromacrogol with SBE (single-balloon enteroscopy) were given (Figure D). Lesions that ranged from 1 to 2 cm were injected with 1-2 mL lauromacrogol until the mucosa turned white. Three SBEs had been performed in a 5-month period. A total of 20 lesions were successfully treated with lauromacrogol. The treated hemangiomas became small, and the site healed 5 months after treatment (Figures E and F). The patient has been followed for 1 year, and he remains in good clinical condition with his latest hemoglobin level at 110 g/L. No further blood transfusion is needed.

Gastroenterology (2019;157:311-2)

BRBNS is a rare disorder characterized by discrete venous malformations of varying size and appearance that are present on the skin and within the gastrointestinal tract.²With wider application of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and the increase of image resolution, the detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of BRBNS are significantly improved. Treatment of BRBNS varies depending on the site, size, and number of lesions. Medication, surgery, and endoscopic therapy are currently clinically applied. The successful use of sirolimus was recently reported in the treatment of vascular lesions.³Sirolimus has potential adverse effects on renal function, bone marrow, and cholesterol metabolism, however. In consideration of the patient’s young age, we did not adopt this method. Surgical resection is more suitable for limited or life-threatening lesions. The lesions in this patient were mild and sporadic. Consequently, in this case, endoscopic injection of lauromacrogol was performed. This was the most complicated case of endoscopic treatment of BRBNS in our center and proved lauromacrogol injection was a feasible approach. According to a literature review, lauromacrogol has been used to treat vascular lesions for decades, but there is still no standard instruction for the dosage of lauromacrogol. We hope that our experience can be a reference for the endoscopic treatment of BRBNS.

References (add links)

1. Gerson LB et al. ACG clinical guideline: Diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol.

2. Felton SJ and Ferguson JE. Multiple cutaneous swellings associated with sudden collapse. JAMA.

3. Yuksekkaya H et al. Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome: Successful treatment with sirolimus. Pediatrics.

Answer: Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome.

Based on the history of hemangioma resection and vascular lesions in the small intestine, along with typical manifestations of chronic gastrointestinal bleeding, diagnosis of blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome (BRBNS) was made. According to an American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Guideline,¹ for patients with recurrence of small bowel bleeding, endoscopic management could be considered depending on the patient’s clinical course and response to prior therapy. Consequently, injections of lauromacrogol with SBE (single-balloon enteroscopy) were given (Figure D). Lesions that ranged from 1 to 2 cm were injected with 1-2 mL lauromacrogol until the mucosa turned white. Three SBEs had been performed in a 5-month period. A total of 20 lesions were successfully treated with lauromacrogol. The treated hemangiomas became small, and the site healed 5 months after treatment (Figures E and F). The patient has been followed for 1 year, and he remains in good clinical condition with his latest hemoglobin level at 110 g/L. No further blood transfusion is needed.

Gastroenterology (2019;157:311-2)

BRBNS is a rare disorder characterized by discrete venous malformations of varying size and appearance that are present on the skin and within the gastrointestinal tract.²With wider application of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and the increase of image resolution, the detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of BRBNS are significantly improved. Treatment of BRBNS varies depending on the site, size, and number of lesions. Medication, surgery, and endoscopic therapy are currently clinically applied. The successful use of sirolimus was recently reported in the treatment of vascular lesions.³Sirolimus has potential adverse effects on renal function, bone marrow, and cholesterol metabolism, however. In consideration of the patient’s young age, we did not adopt this method. Surgical resection is more suitable for limited or life-threatening lesions. The lesions in this patient were mild and sporadic. Consequently, in this case, endoscopic injection of lauromacrogol was performed. This was the most complicated case of endoscopic treatment of BRBNS in our center and proved lauromacrogol injection was a feasible approach. According to a literature review, lauromacrogol has been used to treat vascular lesions for decades, but there is still no standard instruction for the dosage of lauromacrogol. We hope that our experience can be a reference for the endoscopic treatment of BRBNS.

References (add links)

1. Gerson LB et al. ACG clinical guideline: Diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol.

2. Felton SJ and Ferguson JE. Multiple cutaneous swellings associated with sudden collapse. JAMA.

3. Yuksekkaya H et al. Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome: Successful treatment with sirolimus. Pediatrics.

Answer: Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome.

Based on the history of hemangioma resection and vascular lesions in the small intestine, along with typical manifestations of chronic gastrointestinal bleeding, diagnosis of blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome (BRBNS) was made. According to an American College of Gastroenterology Clinical Guideline,¹ for patients with recurrence of small bowel bleeding, endoscopic management could be considered depending on the patient’s clinical course and response to prior therapy. Consequently, injections of lauromacrogol with SBE (single-balloon enteroscopy) were given (Figure D). Lesions that ranged from 1 to 2 cm were injected with 1-2 mL lauromacrogol until the mucosa turned white. Three SBEs had been performed in a 5-month period. A total of 20 lesions were successfully treated with lauromacrogol. The treated hemangiomas became small, and the site healed 5 months after treatment (Figures E and F). The patient has been followed for 1 year, and he remains in good clinical condition with his latest hemoglobin level at 110 g/L. No further blood transfusion is needed.

Gastroenterology (2019;157:311-2)

BRBNS is a rare disorder characterized by discrete venous malformations of varying size and appearance that are present on the skin and within the gastrointestinal tract.²With wider application of video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and the increase of image resolution, the detection rate and diagnostic accuracy of BRBNS are significantly improved. Treatment of BRBNS varies depending on the site, size, and number of lesions. Medication, surgery, and endoscopic therapy are currently clinically applied. The successful use of sirolimus was recently reported in the treatment of vascular lesions.³Sirolimus has potential adverse effects on renal function, bone marrow, and cholesterol metabolism, however. In consideration of the patient’s young age, we did not adopt this method. Surgical resection is more suitable for limited or life-threatening lesions. The lesions in this patient were mild and sporadic. Consequently, in this case, endoscopic injection of lauromacrogol was performed. This was the most complicated case of endoscopic treatment of BRBNS in our center and proved lauromacrogol injection was a feasible approach. According to a literature review, lauromacrogol has been used to treat vascular lesions for decades, but there is still no standard instruction for the dosage of lauromacrogol. We hope that our experience can be a reference for the endoscopic treatment of BRBNS.

References (add links)

1. Gerson LB et al. ACG clinical guideline: Diagnosis and management of small bowel bleeding. Am J Gastroenterol.

2. Felton SJ and Ferguson JE. Multiple cutaneous swellings associated with sudden collapse. JAMA.

3. Yuksekkaya H et al. Blue rubber bleb nevus syndrome: Successful treatment with sirolimus. Pediatrics.

People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows. 

Researchers found 22 links between viruses and common neurologic conditions often seen in older people. The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.

The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders. 

“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”

For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.

Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.

Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.

“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”

The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.

The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows. 

Researchers found 22 links between viruses and common neurologic conditions often seen in older people. The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.

The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders. 

“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”

For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.

Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.

Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.

“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”

The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.

The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.

People hospitalized with viral infections like the flu are more likely to have disorders that degrade the nervous system, like Alzheimer’s or Parkinson’s, later in life, a new analysis shows. 

Researchers found 22 links between viruses and common neurologic conditions often seen in older people. The viruses included influenza, encephalitis, herpes, hepatitis, pneumonia, meningitis, and shingles. Those viruses were linked to one or more of these conditions: Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), dementia, and multiple sclerosis.

The authors of the study, which was published this month in the journal Neuron, cautioned that their findings stopped short of saying the viruses caused the disorders. 

“Neurodegenerative disorders are a collection of diseases for which there are very few effective treatments and many risk factors,” study author and National Institutes of Health researcher Andrew B. Singleton, PhD, said in a news release from the NIH. “Our results support the idea that viral infections and related inflammation in the nervous system may be common – and possibly avoidable – risk factors for these types of disorders.”

For the study, two data sets were analyzed with a combined 800,000 medical records for people in Finland and the United Kingdom. People who were hospitalized with COVID-19 were excluded from the study.

Generalized dementia was the condition linked to the most viruses. People exposed to viral encephalitis, which causes brain inflammation, were 20 times more likely to be diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, compared with those who were not diagnosed with that virus.

Both influenza and pneumonia were also associated with all of the neurodegenerative disorder diagnoses studied, with the exception of multiple sclerosis. The researchers found that severe flu cases were linked to the most risks.

“Keep in mind that the individuals we studied did not have the common cold. Their infections made them so sick that they had to go to the hospital,” said study author and NIH researcher Michael Nalls, PhD. “Nevertheless, the fact that commonly used vaccines reduce the risk or severity of many of the viral illnesses observed in this study raises the possibility that the risks of neurodegenerative disorders might also be mitigated.”

The researchers examined the time from when someone was infected with a virus to the time when they were diagnosed with one of the neurodegenerative disorders. They found that most had a high risk within 1 year of infection. But in six scenarios, there were significant links that showed up after 5-15 years.

The authors wrote that vaccines that are available for some of the viruses studied may be a way to reduce the risk of getting diseases that degrade the nervous system.

A version of this article first appeared on WebMD.com.