No abstract

Background: Obesity's risk increases for low-income, female, young, and Black patients. By extrapolation, idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH)-a disease associated with body mass index-would potentially display socioeconomic and demographic disparities. Methods: IIH incidence (per 100,000) was investigated with respect to sex, age, income, residence, and race/ethnicity, by querying the largest United States (US) healthcare administrative dataset (1997-2016), the National (Nationwide) Inpatient Sample. Results: Annual national incidence (with 25th and 75th quartiles) for IIH was 1.15 (0.91, 1.44). Females had an incidence of 1.97 (1.48, 2.48), larger (p = 0.0000038) than males at 0.36 (0.26, 0.38). Regarding age, largest incidence was among those 18-44 years old at 2.47 (1.84, 2.73). Low-income patients had an incidence of 1.56 (1.47, 1.82), larger (p = 0.00024) than the 1.21 (1.01, 1.36) of the middle/high. No differences (χ 2 = 4.67, p = 0.097) were appreciated between urban (1.44; 1.40, 1.61), suburban (1.30; 1.09, 1.40), or rural (1.46; 1.40, 1.48) communities. For race/ethnicity (χ 2 = 57, p = 2.57 × 10 −12), incidence was largest for Blacks (2.05; 1.76, 2.74), followed by Whites (1.04; 0.79, 1.41), Hispanics (0.67; 0.57, 0.94), and Asian/Pacific Islanders (0.16; 0.11, 0.19). Year-to-year, incidence rose for all strata subsets except Asian/Pacific Islanders (τ = −0.84, p = 0.00000068). Conclusion: IIH demonstrates several sociodemographic disparities. Specifically, incidences are larger for those low-income, Black, 18-44 years old, or female, while annually increasing for all subsets, except Asian/Pacific Islanders. Hence, IIH differentially afflicts the US population, yielding in healthcare inequalities.

The clinical indications and added value of obtaining MRI in the acute phase of spinal cord injury (SCI) remain controversial. This review aims to critically evaluate evidence regarding the role of MRI to influence decision-making and outcomes in acute SCI. A systematic review and meta-analysis were performed according to PRISMA methodology to identify studies that address six key questions (KQs) regarding diagnostic accuracy, frequency of abnormal findings, frequency of altered decision-making, optimal timing, and differences in outcomes related to obtaining an MRI in acute SCI. A total of 32 studies were identified that addressed one or more KQs. MRI showed no adverse events in 156 patients (five studies) and frequently identified cord compression (70%, 12 studies), disc herniation (43%, 16 studies), ligamentous injury (39%, 13 studies), and epidural hematoma (10%, two studies), with good diagnostic accuracy (seven comparative studies) except for fracture detection. MRI findings often altered management, including timing of surgery (78%, three studies), decision to operate (36%, 15 studies), and surgical approach (29%, nine studies). MRI may also be useful to determine the need for instrumentation (100%, one study), which levels to decompress (100%, one study), and if reoperation is needed (34%, two studies). The available literature consistently concluded that MRI was useful prior to surgical treatment (13 studies) and after surgery to assess decompression (two studies), but utility before/after closed reduction of cervical dislocations was unclear (three studies). One study showed improved outcomes with an MRI-based protocol but had a high risk of bias. Heterogeneity was high for most findings (I2 > 0.75). MRI is safe and frequently identifies findings alter clinical management in acute SCI, although direct evidence of its impact on outcomes is lacking. MRI should be performed before and after surgery, when feasible, to facilitate improved clinical decision-making. However, further research is needed to determine its optimal timing, effect on outcomes, cost-effectiveness, and utility before and after closed reduction.

Background Gauging medical education quality has always remained challenging. Many studies have examined predictors of standardized exam performance; however, data sets do not distinguish by institution or curriculum. Our objective is to present a summary of variables associated with the United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) scores, and thus identify institutions (and therefore curriculums) which deviate from trend lines by producing higher USMLE scores despite having lower entrance grade point averages and medical college admissions test (MCAT) scores. Methods Data was obtained from U.S. News and World Report’s 2014 evaluation of allopathic U.S. medical schools. A univariate analysis was performed first for each variable using two sample t-test or Wilcoxon rank sum test for categorical variables, and Pearson or Spearman correlation coefficients for continuous variables. A multivariable linear regression model was developed to identify the factors contributing to USMLE scores. All statistical analyses were two-sided and performed using SAS software version 9.4 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC). Results Univariate analysis reveals a significant association between USMLE Step 1 and 2 scores with medical college admissions test scores, grade point averages, school type (private vs. public), full-time faculty-to-student ratio, National Institute of Health funds, residency director assessment score, peer assessment score, and class size. Of these nine variables, MCAT scores and Step 1 scores display the strongest correlation (corr = 0.72, P < .0001). Multivariable analysis also supports a significant association between MCAT scores and Step scores, meanwhile National Institute of Health funding size demonstrates a negative correlation with USMLE Step 2 scores. Although MCAT scores and National Institute of Health funds are significantly associated with USMLE performance, six outlier institutions were identified, producing higher USMLE scores than trend line predictions. Conclusions Outlier institutions produce USMLE scores that do not follow expected trend lines. Their performance might be explainable by differences in curriculum. Having identified these institutions, their curriculums can be further studied to determine what factors enhance student learning.

No abstract

Objective/IntroductionWith the 2016 update of the WHO Classification of Tumors of the Central Nervous System incorporating molecular subtyping to histology, WHO grade II diffuse astrocytic and oligodendroglial tumors are now subcategorized by distinct molecular markers. Currently, there are no published systematic reviews quantifying differences in progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) on the basis of molecular subtypes of WHO grade II diffuse gliomas, against the background of administered treatments. MethodsUtilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and the Cochrane Handbook of Systemic Reviews of Interventions, we conducted a systematic review through MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL. ResultsFor OS, the first quartile (25%), median (50%), third quartile (75%), and 95% confidence interval were respectively identified (in months)-astrocytoma-wild type WHO II (

Undergraduate students participating in the UCLA Undergraduate Research Consortium for Functional Genomics (URCFG) have conducted a two-phased screen using RNA interference (RNAi) in combination with fluorescent reporter proteins to identify genes important for hematopoiesis in Drosophila. This screen disrupted the function of approximately 3500 genes and identified 137 candidate genes for which loss of function leads to observable changes in the hematopoietic development. Targeting RNAi to maturing, progenitor, and regulatory cell types identified key subsets that either limit or promote blood cell maturation. Bioinformatic analysis reveals gene enrichment in several previously uncharacterized areas, including RNA processing and export and vesicular trafficking. Lastly, the participation of students in this course-based undergraduate research experience (CURE) correlated with increased learning gains across several areas, as well as increased STEM retention, indicating that authentic, student-driven research in the form of a CURE represents an impactful and enriching pedagogical approach.

Introduction: Given that the success of vaccines against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) relies on herd immunity, identifying patients at risk for vaccine hesitancy is imperative—particularly for those at high risk for severe COVID-19 (i.e., minorities and patients with neurological disorders). Methods: Among patients from a large neuroscience institute in Hawaii, vaccine hesitancy was investigated in relation to over 30 sociodemographic variables and medical comorbidities, via a telephone quality improvement survey conducted between 23 January 2021 and 13 February 2021. Results: Vaccine willingness (n = 363) was 81.3%. Univariate analysis identified that the odds of vaccine acceptance reduced for patients who do not regard COVID-19 as a severe illness, are of younger age, have a lower Charlson Comorbidity Index, use illicit drugs, or carry Medicaid insurance. Multivariable logistic regression identified the best predictors of vaccine hesitancy to be: social media use to obtain COVID-19 information, concerns regarding vaccine safety, self-perception of a preexisting medical condition contraindicated with vaccination, not having received the annual influenza vaccine, having some high school education only, being a current smoker, and not having a prior cerebrovascular accident. Unique amongst males, a conservative political view strongly predicted vaccine hesitancy. Specifically for Asians, a higher body mass index, while for Native Hawaiians and other Pacific Islanders (NHPI), a positive depression screen, both reduced the odds of vaccine acceptance. Conclusion: Upon identifying the variables associated with vaccine hesitancy amongst patients with neurological disorders, our clinic is now able to efficiently provide ancillary COVID-19 education to sub-populations at risk for vaccine hesitancy. While our results may be limited to the sub-population of patients with neurological disorders, the findings nonetheless provide valuable insight to understanding vaccine hesitancy.