Neonatal brain injury or neonatal encephalopathy (NE) is a significant morbidity and mortality factor in preterm and full-term newborns. NE has an incidence in the range of 2.5 to 3.5 per 1000 live births carrying a considerable burden for neurological outcomes such as epilepsy, cerebral palsy, cognitive impairments, and hydrocephaly. Many scoring systems based on different risk factor combinations in regression models have been proposed to predict abnormal outcomes. Birthweight, gestational age, Apgar scores, pH, ultrasound and MRI biomarkers, seizures onset, EEG pattern, and seizure duration were the most referred predictors in the literature. Our study proposes a decision-tree approach based on clinical risk factors for abnormal outcomes in newborns with the neurological syndrome to assist in neonatal encephalopathy prognosis as a complementary tool to the acknowledged scoring systems. We retrospectively studied 188 newborns with associated encephalopathy and seizures in the perinatal period. Etiology and abnormal outcomes were assessed through correlations with the risk factors. We computed mean, median, odds ratios values for birth weight, gestational age, 1-min Apgar Score, 5-min Apgar score, seizures onset, and seizures duration monitoring, applying standard statistical methods first. Subsequently, CART (classification and regression trees) and cluster analysis were employed, further adjusting the medians. Out of 188 cases, 84 were associated to abnormal outcomes. The hierarchy on etiology frequencies was dominated by cerebrovascular impairments, metabolic anomalies, and infections. Both preterms and full-terms at risk were bundled in specific categories defined as high-risk 75–100%, intermediate risk 52.9%, and low risk 0–25% after CART algorithm implementation. Cluster analysis illustrated the median values, profiling at a glance the preterm model in high-risk groups and a full-term model in the inter-mediate-risk category. Our study illustrates that, in addition to standard statistics methodologies, decision-tree approaches could provide a first-step tool for the prognosis of the abnormal outcome in newborns with encephalopathy.

Learning disabilities (LDs) have an estimated prevalence between 5% and 9% in the pediatric population and are associated with difficulties in reading, arithmetic, and writing. Previous electroencephalography (EEG) research has reported a lag in alpha-band development in specific LD phenotypes, which seems to offer a possible explanation for differences in EEG maturation. In this study, 40 adolescents aged 10–15 years with LDs underwent 10 sessions of Live Z-Score Training Neurofeedback (LZT-NF) Training to improve their cognition and behavior. Based on the individual alpha peak frequency (i-APF) values from the spectrogram, a group with normal i-APF (ni-APF) and a group with low i-APF (li-APF) were compared in a pre-and-post-LZT-NF intervention. There were no statistical differences in age, gender, or the distribution of LDs between the groups. The li-APF group showed a higher theta absolute power in P4 (p = 0.016) at baseline and higher Hi-Beta absolute power in F3 (p = 0.007) post-treatment compared with the ni-APF group. In both groups, extreme waves (absolute Z-score of ≥1.5) were more likely to move toward the normative values, with better results in the ni-APF group. Conversely, the waves within the normal range at baseline were more likely to move out of the range after treatment in the li-APF group. Our results provide evidence of a viable biomarker for identifying optimal responders for the LZT-NF technique based on the i-APF metric reflecting the patient’s neurophysiological individuality.

The brain activity that is measured by electroencephalography (EEG) can be modified through operant conditioning, specifically using neurofeedback (NF). NF has been applied to several disorders claiming that a change in the erratic brain activity would be accompanied by a reduction of the symptoms. However, the expected results are not always achieved. Some authors have suggested that the lack of an adequate response may be due to an incorrect application of the operant conditioning principles. A key factor in operant conditioning is the use of reinforcers and their value in modifying behavior, something that is not always sufficiently taken into account. This work aims to clarify the relevance of the motivational value versus the purely informational value of the reinforcer. In this study, 113 subjects were randomly assigned two different reinforcer conditions: a selected reinforcer—the subjects subjectively selected the reinforcers—or an imposed reinforcer—the reinforcers were assigned by the experimenter—and both groups undertook NF sessions to enhance the sensorimotor rhythm (SMR). In addition, the selected reinforcer group was divided into two subgroups: one receiving real NF and the other one sham NF. There were no significant differences between the groups at baseline in terms of SMR amplitude. After the intervention, only those subjects belonging to the selected reinforcer group and receiving real NF increased their SMR. Our results provide evidence for the importance of the motivational value of the reinforcer in Neurofeedback success.

Objective: There is limited evidence about the efficacy of cognitive interventions for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). However, aside from the methodological quality of the studies analyzed, the methodology used in previous meta-analyses is itself a risk of bias as different types of effect sizes (ESs) were calculated and combined. This study aimed at examining the results of nonpharmacological interventions for AD with an adequate control of statistical methods and to demonstrate a different approach to meta-analysis. Method: ESs were calculated with the independent groups pre/post design. Average ESs for separate outcomes were calculated and moderator analyses were performed so as to offer an overview of the effects of bias. Results: Eighty-seven outcomes from 19 studies (n = 812) were meta-analyzed. ESs were small on average for cognitive and functional outcomes after intervention. Moderator analyses showed no effect of control of bias, although ESs were different from zero only in some circumstances (e.g., memory outcomes in randomized studies). Cognitive interventions showed no more efficacy than placebo interventions, and functional ESs were consistently low across conditions. Conclusions: cognitive interventions delivered may not be effective in AD probably due to the fact that the assumptions behind the cognitive interventions might be inadequate. Future directions include a change in the type of intervention as well as the use of outcomes other than standardized tests. Additional studies with larger sample sizes and different designs are needed to increase the power of both primary studies and meta-analyses.

No abstract