Prolonged Hyperglycemia Causes Visual and Cognitive Deficits in Danio rerio.

The present study induced prolonged hyperglycemia (a hallmark symptom of Type 2 diabetes [T2DM]) in Danio rerio (zebrafish) for eight or twelve weeks. The goal of this research was to study cognitive decline as well as vision loss in hyperglycemic zebrafish. Fish were submerged in glucose for eight or twelve weeks, after which they were assessed with both a cognitive assay (three-chamber choice) and a visual assay (optomotor response (OMR)). Zebrafish were also studied during recovery from hyperglycemia. Here, fish were removed from the hyperglycemic environment for 4 weeks after either 4 or 8 weeks in glucose, and cognition and vision was again assessed. The 8- and 12-week cognitive results revealed that water-treated fish showed evidence of learning while glucose- and mannitol-treated fish did not within the three-day testing period. OMR results identified an osmotic effect with glucose-treated fish having significantly fewer positive rotations than water-treated fish but comparable rotations to mannitol-treated fish. The 8- and 12-week recovery results showed that 4 weeks was not enough time to fully recovery from the hyperglycemic insult sustained.

Patient and Physician Preferences for Reporting Research Findings.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Although absolute risks provide useful information on the number of excess cases attributable to a harmful exposure or the number of fewer cases attributable to an effective treatment, most research findings are reported in terms of multiplicative effects of exposure on the outcome. We aimed to examine patient and physician preferences for communicating research findings in terms of additive and multiplicative measures of effect and measures of heterogeneity of treatment effects. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study of 76 patients and 26 physicians at an academic medical center in Boston, Massachusetts. Trained study staff conducted interviews about interpretations of study findings. RESULTS: Physicians were equally likely to prefer the number needed to harm or the risk ratio as the most useful measure for making informed health decisions, and patients strongly preferred risk ratios. Participants perceived changes in risk as larger when they were presented using multiplicative measures such as risk ratios than when presented as additive measures such as the risk differences or number needed to treat or harm. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the importance of considering absolute risks and benefits of treatment options, patients and physicians who rely on study findings for making informed decisions often prefer relative measures.

Eliciting stakeholder preferences for patient-centered research.

BACKGROUND: Rather than identifying exposures and outcomes for research solely based on interests of medical professionals, there is a need for research that answers questions that are important to patients, so that they may make treatment decisions based on evidence that reflect their individual preferences. OBJECTIVE: To identify exposures and outcomes of interest that could be studied with electronic health record data from inpatient care. DESIGN SETTING PARTICIPANTS: Mixed-methods analysis of semi-structured interviews administered in 2017 to 76 patients and 26 physicians who receive or provide care at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, MA. MEASUREMENTS: After conducting detailed semi-structured interviews about topics of interest that can be studied using electronic health records of inpatient care, we used an inductive approach to identify themes about the health care experience. RESULTS: Participants reported concerns about adverse effects of medication changes, drug interactions, and surgery and other invasive procedures. The outcomes of greatest concern to them were in-hospital deaths and hospital-acquired infections. Participants commented on the importance of clear communication and information transfers, the hospital environment, accurate skills and knowledge, and upholding patient dignity and respect. CONCLUSION: Engaging patients and physicians in the research development process provided insight to the exposures and outcomes they consider important. Our questions about exposures and outcomes of interest were restricted to topics that could be studied with electronic health record data from inpatient care, but using a similar approach to elicit feedback about the health care experience could be used to glean insight for other areas of future research.