|
|
The purpose of this study was to assess the impact of atrial fibrillation (AF) on stroke outcome in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) treated with thrombolysis or endovascular therapy (EVT).
Long-term microgravity in spaceflight has been demonstrated with induction of multi-organ damage and dysfunction, including the dorsal root ganglia (DRG) injury. Present studies investigated protective effects of oral pyruvate in drinking water on lumbar 5 (L5) DRG tissues in rats subjected with hindlimb unweighting (HU).
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic greatly impacted many aspects of life in the world. Both neurological and ophthalmologic presentations after COVID-19 have been reported.
As vaccination programmes against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are expanded, substantial variation in the prioritisation of different groups is apparent both between countries but also interprovincially within Canada. In this editorial, we bring attention to the need to prioritize individuals with neurologic and rare disorders for vaccination.
Ceramides are implicated in sphingolipid signaling. Elevated ceramide levels have been associated with increased cardiovascular risk, but information on their role in acute ischemic stroke (AIS) is limited.
Viewpoints |
|
| Featured |
|
| ||||
|
|
Current Issue |
|
Table of contents, original article.
Bambang Tri Prasetyo, Beny Rilianto, Ricky Gusanto Kurniawan | 1-7 |
doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr777 |
Ahsen Songul Tutar Kizilkan, Derya Azim, Ebru Kaya Mutlu, Hanifegul Taskiran | 8-15 |
doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr756 |
Gregor Wolbring | 16-36 |
doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr770 |
Alexander Mauskop, Elizabeth Seng, Jordan Van Zyl, Russell K. Portenoy, Helena Knotkova | 37-42 |
doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr760 |
Gene Variant | |
Joana Ferreira Pinto, Mariana Santos, Ana Rita Silva, Diana Matos, Vera Fernandes, Ana Filipa Santos | 43-47 |
doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/jnr765 |
Explore prestigious scientific journals and award and funding opportunities to advance your research. Access practice-improvement tools, including guidelines, measures, and practice management resources. Learn to effectively advocate on behalf of neurologists and their patients, and access AAN position and policy statements. Loading... please wait We’re experiencing unusually high levels of traffic. Thank you for your patience. PublicationsThe AAN provides the highest quality scientific education to the neurology community worldwide. Read the AAN's journals, discover CME publications, and browse reports on breaking news, issues, and trends in neurology. AAN Family of PublicationsNeurology ®The AAN’s flagship journal includes the latest peer-reviewed original clinical research articles, AAN position papers and clinical guidelines, editorials, and reviews that enhance the field of neurology and influence patient care. The journal’s impact factor is 10.1. Earn CME credit by reading two articles selected weekly by the editors and taking the exams online. Neurology ® Clinical PracticeRead peer-reviewed articles and commentaries on clinical topics, practice management, health policy issues, ethical issues, and updates on diseases and disorders. Articles are available in PubMed Central one year after publication. The journal’s impact factor is 2.2. Neurology ® Neuroimmunology & NeuroinflammationAn online-only, open-access journal with peer-reviewed reports of research affecting the full range of neurological diseases. Articles, editorials, and reviews aim to facilitate basic and translational research, along with enhancing patient care. The journal’s impact factor is 8.8. Neurology ® GeneticsAn online-only, open-access journal with peer-reviewed reports in neurogenetics that elucidate the role of genetic and epigenetic variations in diseases and biological traits of the central and peripheral nervous systems. The journal’s impact factor is 4.1. Neurology ® EducationAn online-only, open access journal in the field of neurological and neuroscience education research. Original research articles, reviews, and editorials on evidence-based teaching methods and curriculum innovations provide the academic community with a forum to exchange ideas that enhance teaching and training. Continuum: Lifelong Learning in Neurology ®An in-depth clinically oriented review journal for neurology professionals. Written by authors who are experts in their field, each bimonthly issue contains up-to-date knowledge around a single topic area in neurology with continuing medical education (CME) available. Continuum ® Audio features conversations with Continuum ® authors that supplement each journal article and provide an opportunity for additional CME. Neurology Today ®The AAN's official news source, reporting on breaking news, issues, and trends in neurology. The publication provides an inside track to advances from the AAN, Neurology ® , and other peer-reviewed neurology and medical journals. Published in print twice a month. Brain & Life ®A free magazine and website for patients, caregivers, and anyone interested in brain health. Articles connect readers with stories of people living with brain disease, the latest research, and perspectives on neurological disorders and brain health not found anywhere else. A print subscription (six issues a year) is available to anyone residing in the United States. Brain & Life ® en EspañolA free magazine for Spanish-speaking readers, published quarterly and is mailed to interested readers in the United States with all content available online. Brain & Life and Brain & Life en Español print issues are available in bulk to AAN members in the US to share with your patients. Email [email protected] to learn more. Explore the publications' podcasts, including the Brain & Life ® Podcast, Neurology ® Podcast, and Neurology Minute ®
NeurooncologyMovement disorders, pain and head ache, systemic diseases, cns injuries and cerebrovascular diseases (stroke), neuromuscular diseases, neuroinflammation, infection and multiple sclerosis, neuropsychology, nerve anatomy/neuropathology, cellular and molecular neurodegeneration. – These articles focus mainly on neurology research. – What is neurology? – Definition of neurology: a science involved in the study of the nervous systems, especially of the diseases and disorders affecting them. – Neurology research can include information involving brain research, neurological disorders, medicine, brain cancer, peripheral nervous systems, central nervous systems, nerve damage, brain tumors, seizures, neurosurgery, electrophysiology, BMI, brain injuries, paralysis and spinal cord treatments. Restoring Brain’s Waste-Clearing System Reverses Aging EffectsGlial Cells Play Key Role in Alzheimer’s DevelopmentBrain Scans Improve Concussion Care by Predicting Lasting SymptomsLower Dementia Risk Than Previously Thought in Parkinson’sParental Alcohol Use Linked to Early Aging in KidsLight and Sound Therapy Maintains Myelin in Alzheimer’sDopamine Treatment Reduces Alzheimer’s PlaquesSeaweed Antioxidants Show Promise in Preventing Parkinson’sGenetically Engineered Parasite Delivers Drugs to the BrainNew Multiple Sclerosis Drug Regenerates Myelin, Improves MovementBrain’s Defense Mechanism Against Herpesvirus IdentifiedSkin Cells Turned Neurons Reveal Alzheimer’s Aging EffectsPitch Perfect: Singing Earworms Reveals Surprising TraitMuscle Proteins Trigger Desire for ExerciseWhy Are We Drawn to Events Focused on Death and Disaster?Sleep Resets Neurons to Keep Learning PossibleResearch Topics & Ideas: Neuroscience50 Topic Ideas To Kickstart Your Research Project If you’re just starting out exploring neuroscience-related topics for your dissertation, thesis or research project, you’ve come to the right place. In this post, we’ll help kickstart your research by providing a hearty list of neuroscience-related research ideas , including examples from recent studies. PS – This is just the start… We know it’s exciting to run through a list of research topics, but please keep in mind that this list is just a starting point . These topic ideas provided here are intentionally broad and generic , so keep in mind that you will need to develop them further. Nevertheless, they should inspire some ideas for your project. To develop a suitable research topic, you’ll need to identify a clear and convincing research gap , and a viable plan to fill that gap. If this sounds foreign to you, check out our free research topic webinar that explores how to find and refine a high-quality research topic, from scratch. Alternatively, consider our 1-on-1 coaching service . Neuroscience-Related Research Topics
Neuroscience Research Ideas (Continued)
Recent Neuroscience StudiesWhile the ideas we’ve presented above are a decent starting point for finding a research topic, they are fairly generic and non-specific. So, it helps to look at actual studies in the neuroscience space to see how this all comes together in practice. Below, we’ve included a selection of recent studies to help refine your thinking. These are actual studies, so they can provide some useful insight as to what a research topic looks like in practice.
As you can see, these research topics are a lot more focused than the generic topic ideas we presented earlier. So, for you to develop a high-quality research topic, you’ll need to get specific and laser-focused on a specific context with specific variables of interest. In the video below, we explore some other important things you’ll need to consider when crafting your research topic. Get 1-On-1 HelpIf you’re still unsure about how to find a quality research topic, check out our Research Topic Kickstarter service, which is the perfect starting point for developing a unique, well-justified research topic. Submit a Comment Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
An official website of the United States government The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site. The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
The state of clinical research in neurologyTo study and provide an update on the state of clinical research in neurology in the United States. US American Academy of Neurology members and chairs of departments of neurology were surveyed regarding clinical research in 2016. NIH data on the neuroscience pipeline and extramural grant funding were also collected. The response rate was 32% (n = 254) for nonchair researchers and 58% (n = 67) for department chairs. Researcher respondents were on average 50 years old, 66% were men, and 81% were actively conducting clinical research, with phase II/III clinical trials and outcome measure studies being the most common type of research conducted. Time to conduct research, recruitment, and administrative burden were the major barriers reported. According to department chairs, funding and training opportunities in patient-oriented research have increased over the last 10 years. Overall, applicants to neuroscience-specific NIH institutes for extramural funding have decreased over the same time period. ConclusionsThe state of clinical research in neurology has remained relatively stable over the last 10 years, but neurologists still have barriers in conducting clinical research. There has been an interval decrease in neuroscience applicants for NIH funding, which raises concerns about the pipeline and future of clinical research in neurology. These results will serve as a reference for the development of solutions to these issues. Over the last few decades, there has been a perceived crisis in clinical research attributed to reduced federal funding rates for clinical research, decreased recruitment of clinicians into research, and excessive clinical responsibilities. 1 , 2 On the forefront of assessing clinical research in neurology, the American Academy of Neurology (AAN) published the first “Status of Clinical Research in Neurology” report in 1995, which described the results of a survey conducted through chairs of neurology. 2 At the time, clinical researchers thought that they were poorly regarded as researchers and a substantially lower number of clinical researchers (20%) had more than half of their time protected for research compared to their basic science colleagues (70%). Reported reasons for this lack of necessary research time among clinicians included reduced reimbursement for clinical care necessitating more time spent in clinical duties, insufficient time to seek research funding, and grant applications that were not competitive with their basic researcher competitors. The survey was repeated in 2004 and 50% of chairs of neurology agreed that patient-oriented researchers had more difficulty getting research support and being adequately supported by grants. Furthermore, they reported that managed care had a negative effect on patient-oriented research. No institutional startup funds or training opportunities were available for patient-oriented researchers in 40% of the departments. Many of these same concerns are present for clinical researchers in the current climate, as well as potentially new or growing barriers. Dramatic shifts in the clinical environment over the last 10 years, including the introduction of the electronic medical record, resident work hour restrictions, and higher demands for monitoring of clinical productivity that have increased the clinical burden on neurologists also threaten clinical research in neurology. Government shutdowns, budget stagnation, and decreasing funds for clinical research are potential factors in a worsening situation for the clinical research neurologist. Herein, we report the results of the 2017 Clinical Research Survey, a survey of AAN members who were conducting research to (1) determine the current state of clinical research in neurology in the view of members of the AAN, (2) survey neurology chairs for their perception of the current state of clinical research and for comparison to survey responses in prior years, (3) identify perceived barriers for clinical research in neurology, and (4) explore NIH funding from institutes supporting neuroscience and neurology research for R01 and mentored awards over the same time period. 2 , 3 NIH data were used to show award data regarding the funding climate for clinical research. Clinical research surveyFor this study, AAN definitions of patient-oriented or clinical research were used. 3 The nonchair researcher population included neurologists and researchers who were current members of the AAN with a primary US address at the time of the sample pull on May 4, 2016 (n = 14,973). Of these, 9,710 were excluded because they were 65 years of age or older, were serving on an AAN committee, a neurology department chair, or did not self-report spending at least 1% of their professional time conducting research as determined by their AAN member record. It is standard practice for the AAN to remove those who are 65 and older, those on an AAN committee, and any member who has received a survey in the past 6 months to prevent survey fatigue and reduce burden on these groups of members. Of those 5,263 members remaining, 2,315 were excluded because they had received an AAN survey within the last 6 months, leaving 2,948 eligible members, of whom 800 were randomly sampled. Twelve of the 800 members from the researcher sample had invalid contact information, leaving a final sample of 788 researchers. The surveys were primarily conducted online but were supplemented with paper and fax distribution. Respondents answered between 10 and 41 questions depending on their roles (nonacademician researcher, academician, or chair). The authors designed 10 new questions but kept the remainder the same as in prior versions to allow for comparison. The instrument was vetted by the AAN Member Research Subcommittee and piloted by 2 AAN committee members. The clinical research survey (appendix e-1, links.lww.com/WNL/A336 ) included questions to define the type of research conducted, aspects of the research environment, and funding by individuals who identified themselves as participating in clinical research. Survey respondents were asked whether they were conducting clinical research currently and, if not, what barriers had prevented them from doing so. Those conducting clinical research were asked to detail the specific types of clinical research they had conducted in the last year, the types of clinical research training they had received, and obstacles they had encountered. The amount of time spent in various research and clinical activities, percentage of funding for salary from various specified sources, and types of funding received were asked. Respondents from academic institutions were asked to agree or disagree with several statements addressing institutional support and publications, and whether they had participated in training fellows or other trainees in clinical research. Neurology department chair surveyThe chair population included the entire population of 116 US neurology department chairs listed in the AAN member database. The survey of department chairs included a series of questions about the size, environment of the department, as well as effect on clinical and basic research from both funding and payer perspectives (appendix e-1, links.lww.com/WNL/A336 ). Chairs were asked about departmental resources for training programs and promotional tracks, were provided questions regarding managed care, and were asked to make comparisons between clinical and basic researchers at the institution. These questions and the questions asked of academic researchers were kept the same as the questions asked on the 1995 and 2004 surveys to allow for a comparison of change in attitudes about clinical research over time. To improve response rates, members of the Clinical Research Subcommittee of the AAN also personally reached out to individual chairs by e-mail, phone calls, or in person to encourage survey completion. NIH data were collected through publicly available tools on NIH.gov and NIH RePORTER with additional help from the office of the director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Statistical analysisStandard descriptive statistics were used to characterize survey responders. Associations between researcher respondents and nonrespondents were evaluated using χ 2 tests for categorical variables (sex, member type, and practice setting) and independent t tests for continuous variables (age). No sampling margin of error or significance testing was calculated for the chair responses because of the use of the entire population. Descriptive statistics (mean, median, range for continuous variables; percentages for categorical) were calculated for the individual survey questions. Longitudinal differences to Likert scale questions for chair responses in 2004 and 2016 were compared using χ 2 tests, with the significance level set to p = 0.05. All analyses were performed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 23 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY). Descriptive statistics were used to summarize NIH data. The AAN initially contacted 788 randomly sampled nonchair members who spent ≥1% of their time in research activities between May and August of 2016. The response rate for the nonchair researcher survey was 31.8% (254/788). Demographic (age and sex) characteristics ( table 1 ) were comparable between the nonchair responders and the nonresponders, with the exception that nonneurologist research scientists accounted for a higher proportion of responders (19.7% vs 13.9%). The majority of researcher nonchair respondents (62.7%) were from an academic medical center–based group and reflect the overall sample in terms of practice setting. Demographics of researcher sample respondents and nonrespondents With 254 of 788 researchers responding, percentage estimates for researchers were accurate to ±5.9% with 95% confidence. Among the 254 nonchair respondents, 19% of the respondents had not conducted clinical research in the past 12 months. Among those who had not conducted clinical research within 12 months, time, upfront costs, and formal training were the most likely barriers ( table 2 ). The respondent characteristics are described in table 3 . On average, 75% of the nonchair respondents were involved in clinical research, 9% were involved in basic science research, and 13% in translational research. Forty-five percent of the nonchair respondents mentored trainees in clinical research. Of their trainees, an average of 33% had applied and received a research grant. For those that conduct clinical research, the survey identified several barriers to research ( table 3 ). Barriers to conducting research Characteristics of the respondents The AAN contacted all 116 chairs of US neurology departments. A total of 67 (57.7% response rate) of 116 US neurology department chairs responded to the survey (compared to a chair response rate of 81% in the 2004 survey). The mean age of respondents was 60.3 years (SD 7.5 years) and 83.6% were men. There were no significant differences in age, sex, or practice setting between chair responders and nonresponders. Within the last year, 85% of chair respondents had reported personally conducting research and, on average, spent 25% of their professional time conducting research, of which 15% was basic research, 66% clinical research, and 17% translational research. Among department chairs, 47% believed that patient-oriented researchers have more difficulty than basic researchers securing research support at their home institution, which is similar to the chair responses in 2004 ( table 4 ). More chairs believed that clinical researchers were more adequately supported by grants at their institution (39% of 2016 chairs vs 27% in 2004 [ p = 0.12]), and that basic researchers are less adequately supported by grants (47% in 2016 vs 59% in 2004 [ p = 0.14]). Only 45% of chairs thought that managed care was having a negative effect on clinical research (compared to 75% in 2004 [ p < 0.001]), and only 15% thought basic research was negatively affected by managed care (compared to 31% in 2005 [ p = 0.02]). Institutional startup funds for patient-oriented researchers were available according to 60% of chairs, similar to 2004. Perceived availability of training opportunities for clinical research had improved, with 88% of chairs affirming these opportunities at their institution, compared with 60.4% in 2004 ( p < 0.001). Chair responses in 2004 vs 2016 Overall NIH success rates for grant applications had remained stable over the last 10 years (2006–2015) at 16% for all types of applications ( table 5 ). From 2006 to 2011 (the only years for which there were data available), there was an increase in MD, MD-PhD, and PhD applicants and awardees across the entire NIH, including all funding mechanisms ( table 6 ). Growth was largest in the PhD applicant pool compared to MD or MD-PhD applicants. Comparison of R01 (investigator-initiated award), K23 (mentored patient-oriented research career development award), and K08 (mentored clinician scientist development award) Applicants and awards by degree across NIH a For NIH institutes with a specific focus on neurology and neuroscience (NINDS, National Institute on Aging [NIA], National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH]) over the last 10 years, however, there has been a 17% decrease in applicants overall for Research Project (R01) grants comparing between 2006 and 2015 ( table 5 ). Mentored awards saw larger decreases in applicant number, with a 24% decrease in Patient-Oriented Research Career Development Award applicants and a 42% decrease in Clinical Scientist Research Career Development Award applicants. While success rates for neurology-specific NIH institutes remained largely stable or increased over the 10-year period, the success rate for K23 awards and K08 awards at NINDS dropped from 33% and 39% in 2006 to 22% and 32.6% in 2015, respectively. For midcareer investigator awards in Patient-Oriented Research (K24), there were 12 applicants total in 2015, with 75% funded, compared to 33 applicants in 2005, with 36% funded. From 2008 to 2015, the total number of NIH-defined clinical research grants awarded has decreased from 6,065 to 5,472. Funding for NIH-defined clinical research grants has remained relatively stable for NINDS and NIA, but decreased for NIMH. NIH-defined, high-risk, high-reward clinical research programs have risen, including Pioneer Awards (1/10 awarded in 2008 to 3/23 in 2015), New Innovator Awards (2/36 in 2008 to 7/42 in 2015), and Early Independence Awards (1/9 in 2010 to 7/16 in 2015). Transformative Research Awards, established in 2009, have decreased from 8/43 in 2009 to 2/8 in 2015. The results of this clinical research in neurology survey suggest that both the environment and funding for clinical research have remained relatively stable over the last 10 years. Unexpectedly, department chairs reported a reduced negative effect of managed care on academic research compared to 2004 and an increase in training opportunities in patient-oriented research. Time to conduct research, recruitment challenges, and administrative burden remain major obstacles for clinical researchers. The mean time spent on research (30%) as compared to other professional activities, is likely inadequate for the performance of more complex or larger-scale research, which ultimately affects the type of clinical research that is being done in our community at large. Within the qualitative comments at the end of the survey, researchers in academic practices identified high clinical demands as a barrier to research; in direct contrast, private practice respondents reported that clinical research (industry) was critical for financial solvency. This has allowed those in private practice to participate in clinical research, when they otherwise might not have. However, it may be noted that the type of clinical research conducted in academic vs private practices may contribute to responses, with private practices more likely to conduct clinical trials and less likely to conduct investigator-initiated research. Other concurrent time-consuming clinical activities that reduce the ability to conduct clinical research were not specifically queried (e.g., time spent on electronic medical record activities). Potential solutions to increase and provide clinical researchers with protected time include using indirect funding related to grants to buy clinical research faculty time 4 and/or research “performance-based” programs 5 that provide in-kind time for successful achievement of specified research milestones (e.g., submitted grant applications, completing projects, and/or publishing results). The latter could also be used for incentive-based payments, similar to those used for clinical-focused faculty, which would incentivize clinical research faculty productivity and provide payment models that are on par with seeing clinic patients. Difficulty with patient recruitment was cited as a major barrier to clinical research. The NIH has established clinicaltrials.gov , which allows patients to directly search for appropriate studies and ResearchMatch, an online national clinical research registry that matches patients with studies at institutions in order to facilitate research recruitment. The AAN and other neurologic organizations may need to work with the NIH to provide other solutions. Regulatory burden may be eased with the new federal policies for the protection of humans subjects research (the “Common Rule”), which are anticipated to change in 2018, including expansion of the definition of exempt research and elimination of some continuing reviews that need to be submitted to institutional review boards. Other resources for clinical researchers that could resolve barriers could include centralizing services, such as biostatistics, research personnel, and regulatory experts, at institutions that do not have established clinical research centers. 6 The number of applicants for neurology institute–specific NIH R01 awards has dropped between 2006 and 2015, as have applications for K23 and K08 awards from 42% to 24% during that same time period. These reductions do not appear to be secondary to a substantial decrease in success rates because most NINDS, NIA, and NIMH success rates have remained stable or improved. In addition, these decreases in applicant numbers do not appear to reflect NIH-wide trends, since the overall number of MD, MD-PhD, and PhD applicants for grants NIH-wide increased comparing 2006 to 2011. Instead, it appears that the decrease in R01 applicants was associated with an increase in R21 and U01 application rates across these institutes. Although beyond the scope of this project, determining whether R21 applicants are more junior researchers and have a lower conversion to a subsequent R01, contributing to the overall decrease in R01 awards, would be important. The decrease in application rates for mentored awards to neurology-specific institutes suggests that within the neurosciences, there are factors unrelated to funding rates or available training in clinical research that are driving a decision not to pursue research (and research funding). If the trend continues, there will be fewer and fewer individuals pursuing NIH-funded neuroscience-oriented research in the future. Because of low application rates, the K24 program was not renewed at NINDS, which will have the anticipated effect of providing fewer NIH-funded mentors for K awardees. A novel attempt to increase research by the NINDS is the R25 program, which sponsors educational activities that complement other formal training programs including activities during the summer academic break for students, and may help the pipeline. An important potential factor in reduced funding applications not studied in this survey includes neurologist burnout. 7 In fact, increased research time, which often provided increased autonomy and decreased time spent in direct patient care, might be expected to protect academic researchers from physician burnout. Limitations to the current study should be acknowledged. First, response rates for both AAN nonchair members and US neurology department chairs were substantially lower compared to previous surveys. Repeated efforts to increase response rates, including individualized contact to all neurology department chairs by the authors, were not successful in increasing response rates up to that seen in prior years. This low response rate may reflect the general lack of time cited by AAN survey respondents as a barrier to research in the current climate rates and could have biased findings reported in the current survey as respondents may differ from nonrespondents in terms of time, research interests, or other factors. The low response rate could also reflect systematic biases in those who completed the surveys. Second, there is a caveat to looking at the NIH data at 2 time points in that it may not best represent linear trends over the 10 years. Finally, this survey and past surveys have not distinguished between investigator-initiated research as opposed to neurologist participation in clinical trials. Both of these research pursuits are important, and future surveys may benefit from adding more questions relevant to each of these types of studies. The state of clinical research in neurology has remained stable in many areas over the last 10 years. However, fewer neurology researchers are applying for NIH funding, with the greatest decrease found in the number of early career award applicants, a mechanism to support mentored research. While the reasons for this decrease in applicant rates remain unclear, our survey suggests that limited time, challenges of subject recruitment, and administrative burden are the largest barriers for neurologic clinical researchers. These barriers, and others, must be identified and addressed to avoid an efflux of talent from bringing new cures to neurologic patients. AcknowledgmentThe authors thank Nate Kosher at the American Academy of Neurology for conduct of the survey, and Amy Borenstein, PhD, MPH, at University of South Florida, Lisa DeAngelis, MD, at Memorial Sloan Kettering in New York, Amanda Peltier, MD, at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, Alice Chen-Plotkin, MD, at Department of Neurology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Walter Koroshetz, MD, at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, Ralph Sacco, MD, at University of Miami, Barbara Vickrey, MD, MPH, at Mount Sinai in New York for editing and comments on the manuscript.
Author contributionsD.H.: design/conceptualization of the study, analysis and interpretation of the data, drafting and revising the manuscript for intellectual content. A.R.R.: design/conceptualization of the study, analysis and interpretation of the survey data, revising the manuscript for intellectual content. J.M.G.: design/conceptualization of the study, analysis and interpretation of the survey data, revising the manuscript for intellectual content. A.V.: design/conceptualization of the study, analysis and interpretation of the survey data, revising the manuscript for intellectual content. M.B.: design/conceptualization of the study, interpretation of the data, critically revising the manuscript for intellectual content. B.M.K.: design/conceptualization of the study, analysis and interpretation of the survey data, revising the manuscript for intellectual content. C.C.: design/conceptualization of the study, analysis and interpretation of the survey data, revising the manuscript for intellectual content. M.G.: design/conceptualization of the study, analysis and interpretation of the survey data, revising the manuscript for intellectual content. Study fundingNo targeted funding reported. D. Hall has received research support from NINDS, Parkinson Foundation, Anti-Aging Foundation, Shapiro Foundation, Pfizer, AbbVie, and Neurocrine. A. Ramos has received research support from the University of Miami, Miller School of Medicine Clinical and Translational Science Institute, NINDS, and NIA. He also serves as consultant to MCMC, LLC, CompPartners, Inc., and Medical Review Institute of America. J. Gelfand reports personal compensation for consulting on a scientific advisory board for Genentech (more than 1 year ago) and MedImmune (more than 2 years ago), and medical legal consulting (expert witness). Dr. Gelfand has received research support to UCSF from Genentech and MedDay for clinical trials and from Quest Diagnostics for development of a dementia care pathway. Dr. Gelfand's wife has received personal compensation for consulting on a scientific advisory board for Eli Lilly, eNeura, and Zosano, travel expenses to a scientific meeting from Teva, and research support to UCSF from eNeura and Allergan (more than 1 year ago). A. Videnovic has received research support from NINDS. He has served as a site investigator for clinical trials supported by Pfizer and PhotoPharmics. He has received personal compensation for DSMB and consulting services for Acorda Therapeutics, Wilson Therapeutics, Pfizer, and Retrophin. M. Benatar has received research support from NINDS, NCATS, FDA, DOD, CDC, Muscular Dystrophy Association, the ALS Association, and Eli Lilly and Company. He has served as a site investigator for clinical trials supported by Alexion, Cytokinetics, and Neuraltus. He has received personal compensation for advisory board services for Denali Therapeutics, Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma, UCB, and Ra Pharmaceuticals. C. Cahill is an employee of the American Academy of Neurology. B. Kluger has received support from NINDS, NIA, NINR, the Michael J. Fox Foundation, the Parkinson Foundation, PCORI, the Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute, and the Davis Phinney Foundation. M. Goldman has received consultant fees from ADAMAS, EMD Serono, Novartis Pharmaceuticals, and Teva Neuroscience. She has received grant funding from the NIH NINDS, National MS Society, PCORI, Biogen Idec, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals. She has received travel support from Biogen, Acorda Therapeutics, EMD Serono, Teva Neuroscience, and Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Go to Neurology.org/N for full disclosures.
121 Original Neuroscience Research TopicsNow, wouldn’t it be great if you had a list of awesome neuroscience research topics to choose from? Our PhD dissertation help would definitely make writing a thesis or dissertation a lot easier. Well, the good news is that we have a long list of neuroscience paper topics for you right here. The list of topics is updated periodically, so you will surely be able to find a unique topic; something that nobody has though of yet. And yes, you can use any of our topics for free. Writing a Neuroscience DissertationTo write a good dissertation, you need more than just our interesting neuroscience topics. Your supervisor expects you to make some progress pretty quickly, so you really need all the help you can get. You can get all the assistance you need to get started quickly from our dissertation experts and you’ll also find the following guide useful: Set up your project and conduct the necessary research and data analysis. Don’t forget to think about an interesting, captivating thesis statement. Start by writing the first chapter of the dissertation, the introduction. This will provide your readers with comprehensive background information about your study. Write the Literature Review chapter. This will take some time, especially if you are dealing with a popular subject. Write the Methodology chapter. This is basically an iteration and in-depth description of each and every method you have used to collect the data. Write the Results chapter. In this chapter, you will present your readers the results of your research. You don’t need to provide your own take on the data yet. Next comes the Discussion (or Analysis) chapter. This is where you are free to discuss your results and show your readers how they support your thesis. Finally, the Conclusion chapter wraps everything up. You can summarize your methods, results and analysis and make it clear that your paper has answered all the relevant research questions. Write the References section and the Appendices section. Edit and proofread your work thoroughly to make sure you don’t lose points over some minor mistakes – or have our expert proofreaders and editors do it for you. This step-by-step guide applies to any thesis or dissertation. However, before you even get this far, you need a great topic to start with. Fortunately, we have 121 brand new topics for you right here on this page. Interesting Neuroscience TopicsIf you are looking for some of the most interesting neuroscience topics, you have definitely arrived at the right place. Our experts have put together the best list of ideas for you:
Engaging Topics in NeuroscienceAre you looking for some engaging topics in neuroscience? If you want the best ideas, all you have to do is take a look at the following list and take your pick:
Comprehensive Neuroscience Topic for Every StudentThe nice thing about our blog is that we have a comprehensive neuroscience topic for every student. Even better, all our topics are relatively simple, so you don’t have to spend a lot of time doing research:
Neuroscience Research QuestionsThe best way to get ideas for your next paper is to take a look at some original neuroscience research questions. Here are some that should get you started right away:
Easy Neuroscience Paper TopicsOur experts have created a list of easy neuroscience paper topics for you. You could start writing your thesis in no time if you choose one of these great ideas:
Neuroscience Research Topics for College StudentsWe have a list of awesome neuroscience research topics for college students and you can use any one of them for free. Take a look at our best ideas yet:
Cognitive Neuroscience Research TopicsIf you want to talk about something in cognitive neuroscience, we have put together the best and most interesting cognitive neuroscience research topics:
Brain Research TopicsBrain research is a very interesting thing to talk about, especially since we are still struggling to understand how certain things work. Take a look at some amazing brain research topics:
Neurobiology TopicsWe agree, researching a topic in neurobiology is not easy. However, with the right neurobiology topics, you could write an awesome thesis without spending years working on it:
Behavioral Neuroscience Research TopicsDo you want to write your dissertation on a behavioral neuroscience topic? Our experts have compiled a list of the most interesting behavioral neuroscience research topics for you:
Cool Neuroscience TopicsWe have some very cool neuroscience topics right here and the good news is that they’re all relatively easy. The list has been updated recently and new topics have been added:
Controversial Topics in NeuroscienceJust like any other field, neuroscience has its controversies. And what better way to start a dissertation than finding the most controversial topics in neuroscience:
Hot Topics in NeuroscienceDid you know that getting hot topics in neuroscience is not overly difficult? This section of our list of topics is updated periodically, so you can definitely find an original idea right here:
Current Topics in NeuroscienceThe best way to make your thesis interesting is to write about something that is of great interest. This means you need to choose one of our current topics in neuroscience:
Complex Neurological Research TopicsAre you looking for some complex neurological research topics? If you want to give a difficult topic a try, don’t hesitate to choose one of these excellent ideas:
Can You Help Me With My Thesis?So, can you help me with my thesis? Of course, we can help you with much more than some interesting neuroscience research paper topics. Our experienced professionals are ready to give you the best dissertation assistance on the Internet and make sure you get a top score on your paper. All our university educated ENL writers have extensive experience writing dissertations on any subject and topic you can imagine. These cheap dissertation writing services can deliver a final paper in no time, so don’t hesitate to get in touch with us even if you are on a tight deadline. Our PhD-holding writers and editors are ready to spring into action right now. We can help you with the research, as well as with thesis writing, editing and proofreading. Moreover, we can write a high quality research paper for any high school, college or university student. Your professor will love our work – guaranteed. Our company has 24/7 customer support, so you can order custom academic content online at any time of day or night. What are you waiting for? Give us a try and get a discount! Leave a Reply Cancel replyYour email address will not be published. Required fields are marked * Comment * Error message Name * Error message Email * Error message Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. As Putin continues killing civilians, bombing kindergartens, and threatening WWIII, Ukraine fights for the world's peaceful future. Ukraine Live Updates Follow us on social media
Neurology & Neurological Sciences ResearchResearch OverviewThe Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences hosts one of the top neurology research programs in the U.S. with its faculty serving as leaders in many fields of neurology research. The department is currently ranked among the top 5 neurology departments in NIH funding and has NIH and other formally designated Centers of Excellence in multiple areas. In addition, our department has the highest number of NIH Pioneer Award Faculty members in the U.S. (four), a reflection of the exceptionally innovative Stanford research milieu and department research support. Our research activities cover a wide range of programs ranging from basic neuroscience studies, quantitative data sciences, translational studies, and clinical trials. In addition, Stanford University is well known for its outstanding, high-impact neuroscience community consisting of several hundred faculty including many international leaders in multiple areas. Located in the heart of Silicon Valley, our researchers benefit from collaboration with leading experts in medical imaging, computer science, genomics, proteomics, stem cells, and bioengineering. Our department also benefits from being located on the main Stanford campus with collaborations across all the full range of schools and departments. Research FacilitiesOur researchers have access to the finest shared core research resources including the Stanford Center for Clinical and Translational Education and Research, the Stanford Behavioral and Functional Neuroscience Laboratory , and The Richard M. Lucas Center for Imaging, one of the premiere centers in the world devoted to research in magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), spectroscopy (MRS) and CT imaging. Stanford continues to grow and provide new, exciting opportunities for research. The new Lorry I. Lokey Stem Cell Research Building houses the Stanford Stem Cell Biology and Regenerative Medicine Institute, integrating researchers from multiple specialties and disciplines including cancer, neuroscience, cardiovascular medicine, transplantation, immunology, bioengineering, and developmental biology. And soon, The Jill and John Freidenrich Center for Translational Research (FCTR) will be the home for innovative, collaborative, and interdisciplinary clinical and translational research at the School of Medicine and the University. Research TrainingThrough our training program , we are committed to teaching residents in both laboratory and clinical research. Our fellowship program offers training in many specialties including clinical neurophysiology (with subspecialty in epilepsy, neuromuscular disease, or intraoperative monitoring), stroke/vascular neurology, multiple sclerosis, headache, neurocritical care, neurohospitalist, neuro-oncology, and movement disorders. Research LabsAlong with laboratory research , members of our department actively engage in investigator-initiated clinical trials in addition to national and international multicenter clinical trials. Current trials include those for stroke, ependymoma, traumatic brain injury, multiple sclerosis, movement disorders including Parkinson’s disease, and memory disorders including Alzheimer’s disease ( ADRC ). Neurology research is an incredibly dynamic area of medicine. We invite you to follow our progress as we continue to explore new scientific and clinical frontiers in neuroscience. Preprints with The Lancet is part of SSRN´s First Look, a place where journals identify content of interest prior to publication. Authors have opted in at submission to The Lancet family of journals to post their preprints on Preprints with The Lancet. The usual SSRN checks and a Lancet-specific check for appropriateness and transparency have been applied. Preprints available here are not Lancet publications or necessarily under review with a Lancet journal. These preprints are early stage research papers that have not been peer-reviewed. The findings should not be used for clinical or public health decision making and should not be presented to a lay audience without highlighting that they are preliminary and have not been peer-reviewed. For more information on this collaboration, see the comments published in The Lancet about the trial period, and our decision to make this a permanent offering, or visit The Lancet´s FAQ page, and for any feedback please contact [email protected] . Analysis of the Association between Antidepressants and Seizures Based on the Faers Database43 Pages Posted: 16 Aug 2024 Lishui Second People’s Hospital Dongsheng ZhouNingbo university - ningbo kangning hospital, haiyun zhou. Background: Antidepressants are extensively employed in the treatment of depression and other psychiatric disorders; however, their potential link to seizures has engendered clinical concern. This study seeks to elucidate the relationship between four specific antidepressants (bupropion, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and amitriptyline) and the incidence of seizures, thereby assessing the associated risks of their usage. Methods: This investigation utilized adverse event report data pertaining to seizures linked to the four aforementioned antidepressants, spanning from 2004 to 2023. Descriptive statistical techniques were employed to analyze temporal trends, gender and age distributions of the reports, and the correlation between each drug and specific seizure types. Results: The findings indicate a notable surge in the number of seizure reports post-2014, culminating in a peak in 2020. The majority of these reports originated from female patients, predominantly within the 19 to 65-year age range. Each of the four antidepressants exhibited a significant association with seizure occurrences, with bupropion and venlafaxine being particularly prominent. Additionally, distinct correlations were observed between the individual drugs and specific types of seizures. Conclusion: This study underscores the significant associations between bupropion, venlafaxine, fluoxetine, and amitriptyline and the occurrence of seizures. These findings underscore the necessity for clinicians to remain vigilant regarding the risk of seizures when prescribing these medications and to enhance patient monitoring protocols. Further mechanistic studies and clinical trials are warranted to deepen the understanding of the relationship between these drugs and seizure occurrences, thus informing clinical practice. Funding: This manuscript was funded by Zhejiang Province Traditional Chinese Medicine Science and Technology Project(2024ZL1306). Declaration of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Ethical Approval: This project was submitted for review through Advocate Health and was waived as this study was deemed non-human subject related research. Keywords: Antidepressants, Seizures, Bupropion, Venlafaxine, Adverse Event Reports Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation Liuyin Jin (Contact Author)Lishui second people’s hospital ( email ). Ningbo China Click here to go to TheLancet.comPaper statistics, related ejournals, preprints with the lancet. Subscribe to this free journal for more curated articles on this topic Neurology eJournalInformation
InitiativesYou are accessing a machine-readable page. In order to be human-readable, please install an RSS reader. All articles published by MDPI are made immediately available worldwide under an open access license. No special permission is required to reuse all or part of the article published by MDPI, including figures and tables. For articles published under an open access Creative Common CC BY license, any part of the article may be reused without permission provided that the original article is clearly cited. For more information, please refer to https://www.mdpi.com/openaccess . Feature papers represent the most advanced research with significant potential for high impact in the field. A Feature Paper should be a substantial original Article that involves several techniques or approaches, provides an outlook for future research directions and describes possible research applications. Feature papers are submitted upon individual invitation or recommendation by the scientific editors and must receive positive feedback from the reviewers. Editor’s Choice articles are based on recommendations by the scientific editors of MDPI journals from around the world. Editors select a small number of articles recently published in the journal that they believe will be particularly interesting to readers, or important in the respective research area. The aim is to provide a snapshot of some of the most exciting work published in the various research areas of the journal. Original Submission Date Received: .
Article Menu
Find support for a specific problem in the support section of our website. Please let us know what you think of our products and services. Visit our dedicated information section to learn more about MDPI. JSmol ViewerRevisiting the covid-19 pandemic: mortality and predictors of death in adult patients in the intensive care unit. 1. Introduction2.1. type of study and data collection, 2.2. data recoding, 2.3. statistical analysis, 4. discussion, 5. conclusions, author contributions, institutional review board statement, informed consent statement, data availability statement, acknowledgments, conflicts of interest.
Share and CiteSousa Neto, A.L.d.; Mendes-Rodrigues, C.; Pedroso, R.d.S.; Röder, D.V.D.d.B. Revisiting the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mortality and Predictors of Death in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit. Life 2024 , 14 , 1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14081027 Sousa Neto ALd, Mendes-Rodrigues C, Pedroso RdS, Röder DVDdB. Revisiting the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mortality and Predictors of Death in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit. Life . 2024; 14(8):1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14081027 Sousa Neto, Adriana Lemos de, Clesnan Mendes-Rodrigues, Reginaldo dos Santos Pedroso, and Denise Von Dolinger de Brito Röder. 2024. "Revisiting the COVID-19 Pandemic: Mortality and Predictors of Death in Adult Patients in the Intensive Care Unit" Life 14, no. 8: 1027. https://doi.org/10.3390/life14081027 Article MetricsFurther information, mdpi initiatives, follow mdpi. Subscribe to receive issue release notifications and newsletters from MDPI journals Suggestions or feedback? MIT News | Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Departments
Centers, Labs, & Programs
3 Questions: How to prove humanity onlinePress contact :, media download. *Terms of Use:Images for download on the MIT News office website are made available to non-commercial entities, press and the general public under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives license . You may not alter the images provided, other than to crop them to size. A credit line must be used when reproducing images; if one is not provided below, credit the images to "MIT." Previous image Next image As artificial intelligence agents become more advanced, it could become increasingly difficult to distinguish between AI-powered users and real humans on the internet. In a new white paper , researchers from MIT, OpenAI, Microsoft, and other tech companies and academic institutions propose the use of personhood credentials, a verification technique that enables someone to prove they are a real human online, while preserving their privacy. MIT News spoke with two co-authors of the paper, Nouran Soliman, an electrical engineering and computer science graduate student, and Tobin South, a graduate student in the Media Lab, about the need for such credentials, the risks associated with them, and how they could be implemented in a safe and equitable way. Q: Why do we need personhood credentials? Tobin South: AI capabilities are rapidly improving. While a lot of the public discourse has been about how chatbots keep getting better, sophisticated AI enables far more capabilities than just a better ChatGPT, like the ability of AI to interact online autonomously. AI could have the ability to create accounts, post content, generate fake content, pretend to be human online, or algorithmically amplify content at a massive scale. This unlocks a lot of risks. You can think of this as a “digital imposter” problem, where it is getting harder to distinguish between sophisticated AI and humans. Personhood credentials are one potential solution to that problem. Nouran Soliman: Such advanced AI capabilities could help bad actors run large-scale attacks or spread misinformation. The internet could be filled with AIs that are resharing content from real humans to run disinformation campaigns. It is going to become harder to navigate the internet, and social media specifically. You could imagine using personhood credentials to filter out certain content and moderate content on your social media feed or determine the trust level of information you receive online. Q: What is a personhood credential, and how can you ensure such a credential is secure? South: Personhood credentials allow you to prove you are human without revealing anything else about your identity. These credentials let you take information from an entity like the government, who can guarantee you are human, and then through privacy technology, allow you to prove that fact without sharing any sensitive information about your identity. To get a personhood credential, you are going to have to show up in person or have a relationship with the government, like a tax ID number. There is an offline component. You are going to have to do something that only humans can do. AIs can’t turn up at the DMV, for instance. And even the most sophisticated AIs can’t fake or break cryptography. So, we combine two ideas — the security that we have through cryptography and the fact that humans still have some capabilities that AIs don’t have — to make really robust guarantees that you are human. Soliman: But personhood credentials can be optional. Service providers can let people choose whether they want to use one or not. Right now, if people only want to interact with real, verified people online, there is no reasonable way to do it. And beyond just creating content and talking to people, at some point AI agents are also going to take actions on behalf of people. If I am going to buy something online, or negotiate a deal, then maybe in that case I want to be certain I am interacting with entities that have personhood credentials to ensure they are trustworthy. South: Personhood credentials build on top of an infrastructure and a set of security technologies we’ve had for decades, such as the use of identifiers like an email account to sign into online services, and they can complement those existing methods. Q: What are some of the risks associated with personhood credentials, and how could you reduce those risks? Soliman: One risk comes from how personhood credentials could be implemented. There is a concern about concentration of power. Let’s say one specific entity is the only issuer, or the system is designed in such a way that all the power is given to one entity. This could raise a lot of concerns for a part of the population — maybe they don’t trust that entity and don’t feel it is safe to engage with them. We need to implement personhood credentials in such a way that people trust the issuers and ensure that people’s identities remain completely isolated from their personhood credentials to preserve privacy. South: If the only way to get a personhood credential is to physically go somewhere to prove you are human, then that could be scary if you are in a sociopolitical environment where it is difficult or dangerous to go to that physical location. That could prevent some people from having the ability to share their messages online in an unfettered way, possibly stifling free expression. That’s why it is important to have a variety of issuers of personhood credentials, and an open protocol to make sure that freedom of expression is maintained. Soliman: Our paper is trying to encourage governments, policymakers, leaders, and researchers to invest more resources in personhood credentials. We are suggesting that researchers study different implementation directions and explore the broader impacts personhood credentials could have on the community. We need to make sure we create the right policies and rules about how personhood credentials should be implemented. South: AI is moving very fast, certainly much faster than the speed at which governments adapt. It is time for governments and big companies to start thinking about how they can adapt their digital systems to be ready to prove that someone is human, but in a way that is privacy-preserving and safe, so we can be ready when we reach a future where AI has these advanced capabilities. Share this news article on:Related links.
Related Topics
Related Articles3 Questions: What you need to know about audio deepfakesMIT group releases white papers on governance of AIWhat does the future hold for generative AI?MIT professor to Congress: “We are at an inflection point” with AIPrevious item Next item More MIT NewsWhen the lights turned on in the universeRead full story → Lincoln Laboratory and National Strategic Research Institute launch student research program to tackle biothreats to national securityChristine Ortiz named director of MIT Technology and Policy ProgramMIT engineers design tiny batteries for powering cell-sized robotsNew open-source tool helps to detangle the brainLLMs develop their own understanding of reality as their language abilities improve
Massachusetts Institute of Technology 77 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA, USA
|
IMAGES
COMMENTS
Neurology is a medical specialty that is concerned with the study of structure, function and disorders of the nervous system. ... Research Highlights Open Access 09 Aug 2024 Signal Transduction ...
C.M. Tanner and J.L. OstremN Engl J Med 2024;391:442-452. Parkinson's disease is a multisystem neurodegenerative disorder with motor and prominent, sometimes premonitory, nonmotor symptoms ...
Silvia Spolverato, [...] Darra Francesca. A 7-year-old right-handed girl presented to the pediatric neurology outpatient clinic after 5 episodes of headache over the previous 3 months. Her family history was positive for migraine in the mother and maternal grandmother and for febrile seizures in ... PDF Full Text Abstract Save Article.
The most widely read and highly cited peer-reviewed neurology journal. Articles. Latest; Current Issue; Past Issues; ... Research Article. 12 Aug 2024. Clinical Characteristics of Charcot-Marie-Tooth Disease Type 4J ... Dr. Dan Ackerman talks with Dr. Luciano A. Sposato about the topic of embolic stroke of undetermined source and the ...
Novel Pharmacological Approaches in Migraine Therapy. Damiana Scuteri. Kengo Hamamura. Daniele Martinelli. Gary W. Lawrence. 318 views. The second most-cited clinical neurology journal explores the diagnosis, causes, treatment, and public health aspects of neurological illnesses. Its ultimate aim is to inform improvements in patien...
Formerly Archives of Neurology. Explore the latest in brain science including dementia, traumatic brain injury, cerebellar stroke, restless arms, herpes ... Research Ethics Topics and Collections Visual Abstracts War and ... Economics, and Policy Promoting EDI in Genetics Research PTSD and Cardiovascular Disease Red Blood Cell Transfusion: 2023 ...
The first Lancet Neurology Commission on TBI, published in 2017, provided expert recommendations to reduce the global burden of TBI, calling for concerted action. The Commission provided the foundation for subsequent research, informed strategies of major funding organisation, and has been used to brief legislators and inform policy.
Bonnavion, Varin and colleagues show that striatal projection neurons that coexpress dopamine D1 and D2 receptors have unique physiological properties and serve as a crucial third output in the ...
Top 100 in Neuroscience. This collection highlights our most downloaded* neuroscience papers published in 2021. Featuring authors from around the world, these papers showcase valuable research ...
Addressing these challenges requires a comprehensive approach that includes improving access to care, investing in research to advance diagnostic and treatment options, and increasing public awareness of neurological disorders . The articles contained in this Special Issue highlight significant advances and encourage further investigational ...
Research Methods in Neurology; Video Summaries; Blogs . All Blogs; ... Topic. Imaging 3959; Cerebrovascular Disease/Stroke 3292; MRI 2738; Clinical Neurology 2727; Cognitive Disorders/Dementia 2485; More. Epidemiology 2347; Movement Disorders 2318; Cerebrovascular disease/stroke (general) 2047; Genetics 2014;
Neurology Research International - Wiley Online Library. Neurology Research International focuses on diseases of the nervous system, as well as normal neurological functioning. Research topics include basic, translational, and clinical research, including animal models and clinical trials. As part of Wiley's Forward Series, this journal ...
Journal of Neurology Research, biannually, ISSN 1923-2845 (print), 1923-2853 (online), published by Elmer Press Inc. The content of this site is intended for health care professionals. This is an open-access journal distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License, which permits ...
Neurology ®. The AAN's flagship journal includes the latest peer-reviewed original clinical research articles, AAN position papers and clinical guidelines, editorials, and reviews that enhance the field of neurology and influence patient care. The journal's impact factor is 10.1. Earn CME credit by reading two articles selected weekly by ...
FOCUSED RESEARCH TOPICS. Dementia. Epilepsy. Genetics. Neurooncology. Movement Disorders. Pain and Head Ache. Systemic Diseases. CNS Injuries and Cerebrovascular Diseases (Stroke)
This Research Topic contains 19 articles (including 15 original research articles, one brief research report, two case reports, and one review), with contributions from 209 authors from 13 countries. The theme focuses on the most recent discoveries, latest advances, ongoing challenges, and future perspectives in the field of pediatric neurology.
New research in mice reveals that aging slows the brain's ability to clear out harmful waste, contributing to neurological disorders like Alzheimer's and Parkinson's. Scientists have found that restoring function in the brain's waste-clearing system, known as the glymphatic system, can reverse these age-related effects.
Neuroscience Research Ideas (Continued) The impact of chronic pain on brain structure and connectivity. Analyzing the effects of physical exercise on neurogenesis and cognitive aging. The neural mechanisms underlying hallucinations in psychiatric and neurological disorders. Investigating the impact of music therapy on brain recovery post-stroke.
The AAN contacted all 116 chairs of US neurology departments. A total of 67 (57.7% response rate) of 116 US neurology department chairs responded to the survey (compared to a chair response rate of 81% in the 2004 survey). The mean age of respondents was 60.3 years (SD 7.5 years) and 83.6% were men. There were no significant differences in age ...
A partnership with the Center for Biomedical Research Transparency to promote and facilitate transparent reporting of research. Research Methods in Neurology. This section publishes papers that describe the application of methods used in neurologic research.
Neurology research focus areas include: Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. Researchers are studying various aspects of Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, such as frontotemporal and Lewy body dementia. When combined, the elements provide a comprehensive approach to unraveling the mystery of the disease: from understanding why it ...
This means you need to choose one of our current topics in neuroscience: Cerebellar Neurons that can help you lose weight. Effects of a meat-based diet. Latest brain mapping technology. CT scans in 2023. Brain implants that can control a computer. An in-depth look at super-agers.
Research Overview. The Department of Neurology and Neurological Sciences hosts one of the top neurology research programs in the U.S. with its faculty serving as leaders in many fields of neurology research. The department is currently ranked among the top 5 neurology departments in NIH funding and has NIH and other formally designated Centers ...
Declaration of Interest: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest. Ethical Approval: This project was submitted for review through Advocate Health and was waived as this study was deemed non-human subject related ...
COVID-19 has generated a global impact due to its contagiousness and high lethality rates, with a large number of deaths occurring in intensive care units (ICUs). This study aimed to verify the occurrence of and understand the factors related to mortality in adult patients with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU in a tertiary hospital. This is a retrospective cohort study, which included COVID-19 ...
A new paper published in Technologies outlines how the proposed system analyses tongue colour to provide on-the-spot diagnosis, confirming that AI holds the key to many advances in medicine.
Its specialists provide compassionate, comprehensive care for more than 100,000 adults and children every year and access to more than 200 active clinical trials at any given time. Its innovative research program engages more than 240 scientists at UC Davis who work collaboratively to advance discovery of new tools to diagnose and treat cancer.
Soliman: Our paper is trying to encourage governments, policymakers, leaders, and researchers to invest more resources in personhood credentials. We are suggesting that researchers study different implementation directions and explore the broader impacts personhood credentials could have on the community.