Poison Ivy, Poison Oak, and Poison Sumac.

This JAMA Patient Page describes allergic skin reactions from contact with poison ivy, poison oak, and poison sumac plants, and how to treat rashes caused by these plants.

The impact of COVID-19 on a college freshman sample reveals genetic and nongenetic forms of susceptibility and resilience to stress.

Using a longitudinal approach, we sought to define the interplay between genetic and nongenetic factors in shaping vulnerability or resilience to COVID-19 pandemic stress, as indexed by the emergence of symptoms of depression and/or anxiety. University of Michigan freshmen were characterized at baseline using multiple psychological instruments. Subjects were genotyped, and a polygenic risk score for depression (MDD-PRS) was calculated. Daily physical activity and sleep were captured. Subjects were sampled at multiple time points throughout the freshman year on clinical rating scales, including GAD-7 and PHQ-9 for anxiety and depression, respectively. Two cohorts (2019 to 2021) were compared to a pre-COVID-19 cohort to assess the impact of the pandemic. Across cohorts, 26 to 40% of freshmen developed symptoms of anxiety or depression (N = 331). Depression symptoms significantly increased in the pandemic years and became more chronic, especially in females. Physical activity was reduced, and sleep was increased by the pandemic, and this correlated with the emergence of mood symptoms. While low MDD-PRS predicted lower risk for depression during a typical freshman year, this genetic advantage vanished during the pandemic. Indeed, females with lower genetic risk accounted for the majority of the pandemic-induced rise in depression. We developed a model that explained approximately half of the variance in follow-up depression scores based on psychological trait and state characteristics at baseline and contributed to resilience in genetically vulnerable subjects. We discuss the concept of multiple types of resilience, and the interplay between genetic, sex, and psychological factors in shaping the affective response to different types of stressors.

A systematic literature review of sex differences in childhood language and brain development.

The extent of sex differences in childhood language development is unclear. We conducted a systematic literature review synthesizing results from studies examining sex differences in brain structure and function relevant to language development during childhood. We searched PubMed and Scopus databases, and this returned a total of 46 published studies meeting criteria for inclusion that directly examined sex differences in brain development relevant to language function in children. The results indicate that: (a) sex differences in brain structure or function do not necessarily lead to differences in language task performance; (b) evidence for sex differences in brain and language development are limited; (c) when present, sex differences often interact with a variety of factors such as age and task. Overall, the magnitude of sexual dimorphism of brain developmental trajectories associated with language is not as significant as previously thought. Sex differences were found, however, in studies employing tighter age ranges. This suggests that sex differences may be more prominent during certain developmental stages but are negligible in other stages, likely due to different rates of maturation between the sexes. More research is needed to improve our understanding of how sex differences may arise due to the influence of sex hormones and developmental stages, and how these differences may lead to differences in various language task performance. These studies are expected to provide normative information that may be used in studies examining neurodevelopmental disorders that frequently affect more males than females, and also often affect language development.

Are there gender differences in service use for mental disorders across countries in the European Union? Results from the EU-World Mental Health survey.

BACKGROUND: Women are more likely than men to use mental healthcare (MHC) due to differences in the types of problems and help-seeking behaviours. The consistency of this relationship across European countries, whose MHC organisation differs substantially, is unknown. METHODS: Lifetime MHC-use and the type of MHC provider were assessed in 37 289 participants from the EU-World Mental Health (EU-WMH) survey, including 10 European countries (Northern Ireland, The Netherlands, Belgium, Germany, France, Spain, Italy, Portugal, Bulgaria and Romania). Lifetime mood/anxiety disorders (DSM-IV) and severity were evaluated using the CIDI V.3.0. RESULTS: MHC use was significantly higher for women than men in every country except for Romania (overall OR=1.80, 95% CI1.64 to 1.98), while remaining so after adjusting for socioeconomic characteristics (age, income level, employment status, education, marital status; adjusted OR=1.87, 95% CI 1.69 to 2.06) and country-level indicators (MHC provision, private household out-of-pocket expenditure, and Gender Gap Index; adjusted OR=1.89, 95% CI 1.71 to 2.08). Compared with men, women were also more likely to consult general practitioners (GP) versus specialised MHC (OR=1.32, 95% CI 1.12 to 1.56) with high between-country variability. In participants with mood disorder, the gender relationship in MHC use and type of MHC did not change. Conversely, in participants with anxiety disorder, no significant gender relationship in MHC use was observed (adjusted OR=1.21, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.47). Finally, men with severe mental health problems had a significantly higher odds of MHC use (OR=14.70) when compared with women with similar levels (OR=8.95, p for interaction=0.03) after adjusting for socioeconomic characteristics and country-level indicators. CONCLUSIONS: Women use MHC and GPs more frequently than men, yet this depends on the type and severity of mental health problems.