Faculty Bibliography

OBJECTIVE:To update the consensus recommendations for reporting of quantitative optical coherence tomography (OCT) study results, thus revising the previously published Advised Protocol for OCT Study Terminology and Elements (APOSTEL) recommendations. METHODS:To identify studies reporting quantitative OCT results, we performed a PubMed search for the terms "quantitative" and "optical coherence tomography" from 2015 to 2017. Corresponding authors of the identified publications were invited to provide feedback on the initial APOSTEL recommendations via online surveys following the principle of a modified Delphi method. The results were evaluated and discussed by a panel of experts, and changes to the initial recommendations were proposed. A final survey was recirculated among the corresponding authors to obtain a majority vote on the proposed changes. RESULTS:One hundred sixteen authors participated in the surveys, resulting in 15 suggestions, of which 12 were finally accepted and incorporated into an updated 9-point-checklist. We harmonized the nomenclature of the outer retinal layers, added the exact area of measurement to the description of volume scans; we suggested reporting device-specific features. We advised to address potential bias in manual segmentation or manual correction of segmentation errors. References to specific reporting guidelines and room light conditions were removed. The participants' consensus with the recommendations increased from 80% for the previous APOSTEL version to greater than 90%. CONCLUSIONS:The modified Delphi method resulted in an expert-led guideline (evidence class III, GRADE criteria) concerning study protocol, acquisition device, acquisition settings, scanning protocol, fundoscopic imaging, post-acquisition data selection, post-acquisition analysis, nomenclature and abbreviations, and statistical approach. It will still be essential to update these recommendations to new research and practices regularly.

Social distancing has been a critical public health measure for the COVID-19 pandemic, yet a long history of research strongly suggests that loneliness and social isolation play a major role in several cognitive health issues. What is the true severity and extent of risks involved and what are potential approaches to balance these competing risks? This review aimed to summarize the neurological context of social isolation and loneliness in population health and the long-term effects of social distancing as it relates to neurocognitive aging, health, and Alzheimer's disease and related dementias. The full scope of the underlying causal mechanisms of social isolation and loneliness in humans remains unclear partly because its study is not amenable to randomized controlled trials; however, there are many detailed experimental and observational studies that may provide a hypothesis-generating theoretical framework to better understand the pathophysiology and underlying neurobiology. To address these challenges and inform future studies, we conducted a topical review of extant literature investigating associations of social isolation and loneliness with relevant biological, cognitive, and psychosocial outcomes, and provide recommendations on how to approach the need to fill key knowledge gaps in this important area of research.

Despite increased awareness of the lack of gender equity in academia and a growing number of initiatives to address issues of diversity, change is slow, and inequalities remain. A major source of inequity is gender bias, which has a substantial negative impact on the careers, work-life balance, and mental health of underrepresented groups in science. Here, we argue that gender bias is not a single problem but manifests as a collection of distinct issues that impact researchers' lives. We disentangle these facets and propose concrete solutions that can be adopted by individuals, academic institutions, and society.

Despite ongoing advances in our understanding of local single-cellular and network-level activity of neuronal populations in the human brain, extraordinarily little is known about their "intermediate" microscale local circuit dynamics. Here, we utilized ultra-high-density microelectrode arrays and a rare opportunity to perform intracranial recordings across multiple cortical areas in human participants to discover three distinct classes of cortical activity that are not locked to ongoing natural brain rhythmic activity. The first included fast waveforms similar to extracellular single-unit activity. The other two types were discrete events with slower waveform dynamics and were found preferentially in upper cortical layers. These second and third types were also observed in rodents, nonhuman primates, and semi-chronic recordings from humans via laminar and Utah array microelectrodes. The rates of all three events were selectively modulated by auditory and electrical stimuli, pharmacological manipulation, and cold saline application and had small causal co-occurrences. These results suggest that the proper combination of high-resolution microelectrodes and analytic techniques can capture neuronal dynamics that lay between somatic action potentials and aggregate population activity. Understanding intermediate microscale dynamics in relation to single-cell and network dynamics may reveal important details about activity in the full cortical circuit.

OBJECTIVE:Sporadic brain arteriovenous malformation (BAVM) is a tangled vascular lesion characterized by direct artery-to-vein connections that can cause life-threatening intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH). Recently, somatic mutations in KRAS have been reported in sporadic BAVM, and mutations in other mitogen-activated protein kinase (MAPK) signaling pathway genes have been identified in other vascular malformations. The objectives of this study were to systematically evaluate somatic mutations in MAPK pathway genes in patients with sporadic BAVM lesions and to evaluate the association of somatic mutations with phenotypes of sporadic BAVM severity. METHODS:The authors performed whole-exome sequencing on paired lesion and blood DNA samples from 14 patients with sporadic BAVM, and 295 genes in the MAPK signaling pathway were evaluated to identify genes with somatic mutations in multiple patients with BAVM. Digital droplet polymerase chain reaction was used to validate KRAS G12V and G12D mutations and to assay an additional 56 BAVM samples. RESULTS:The authors identified a total of 24 candidate BAVM-associated somatic variants in 11 MAPK pathway genes. The previously identified KRAS G12V and G12D mutations were the only recurrent mutations. Overall, somatic KRAS G12V was present in 14.5% of BAVM lesions and G12D was present in 31.9%. The authors did not detect a significant association between the presence or allelic burden of KRAS mutation and three BAVM phenotypes: lesion size (maximum diameter), age at diagnosis, and age at ICH. CONCLUSIONS:The authors confirmed the high prevalence of somatic KRAS mutations in sporadic BAVM lesions and identified several candidate somatic variants in other MAPK pathway genes. These somatic variants may contribute to understanding of the etiology of sporadic BAVM and the clinical characteristics of patients with this condition.

OBJECTIVE:To identify priorities for administrative, epidemiologic and diagnostic research in sepsis. DESIGN/METHODS:As a follow-up to a previous consensus statement about sepsis research, members of the Surviving Sepsis Campaign Research Committee, representing the European Society of Intensive Care Medicine and the Society of Critical Care Medicine addressed six questions regarding care delivery, epidemiology, organ dysfunction, screening, identification of septic shock, and information that can predict outcomes in sepsis. METHODS:Six questions from the Scoring/Identification and Administration sections of the original Research Priorities publication were explored in greater detail to better examine the knowledge gaps and rationales for questions that were previously identified through a consensus process. RESULTS:The document provides a framework for priorities in research to address the following questions: (1) What is the optimal model of delivering sepsis care?; (2) What is the epidemiology of sepsis susceptibility and response to treatment?; (3) What information identifies organ dysfunction?; (4) How can we screen for sepsis in various settings?; (5) How do we identify septic shock?; and (6) What in-hospital clinical information is associated with important outcomes in patients with sepsis? CONCLUSIONS:There is substantial knowledge of sepsis epidemiology and ways to identify and treat sepsis patients, but many gaps remain. Areas of uncertainty identified in this manuscript can help prioritize initiatives to improve an understanding of individual patient and demographic heterogeneity with sepsis and septic shock, biomarkers and accurate patient identification, organ dysfunction, and ways to improve sepsis care.