8 results
Artificial intelligence and increasing misinformation
- Scott Monteith, Tasha Glenn, John R. Geddes, Peter C. Whybrow, Eric Achtyes, Michael Bauer
-
- Journal:
- The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 224 / Issue 2 / February 2024
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 26 October 2023, pp. 33-35
- Print publication:
- February 2024
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
With the recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), patients are increasingly exposed to misleading medical information. Generative AI models, including large language models such as ChatGPT, create and modify text, images, audio and video information based on training data. Commercial use of generative AI is expanding rapidly and the public will routinely receive messages created by generative AI. However, generative AI models may be unreliable, routinely make errors and widely spread misinformation. Misinformation created by generative AI about mental illness may include factual errors, nonsense, fabricated sources and dangerous advice. Psychiatrists need to recognise that patients may receive misinformation online, including about medicine and psychiatry.
Using polygenic scores and clinical data for bipolar disorder patient stratification and lithium response prediction: machine learning approach – CORRIGENDUM
- Micah Cearns, Azmeraw T. Amare, Klaus Oliver Schubert, Anbupalam Thalamuthu, Joseph Frank, Fabian Streit, Mazda Adli, Nirmala Akula, Kazufumi Akiyama, Raffaella Ardau, Bárbara Arias, JeanMichel Aubry, Lena Backlund, Abesh Kumar Bhattacharjee, Frank Bellivier, Antonio Benabarre, Susanne Bengesser, Joanna M. Biernacka, Armin Birner, Clara Brichant-Petitjean, Pablo Cervantes, HsiChung Chen, Caterina Chillotti, Sven Cichon, Cristiana Cruceanu, Piotr M. Czerski, Nina Dalkner, Alexandre Dayer, Franziska Degenhardt, Maria Del Zompo, J. Raymond DePaulo, Bruno Étain, Peter Falkai, Andreas J. Forstner, Louise Frisen, Mark A. Frye, Janice M. Fullerton, Sébastien Gard, Julie S. Garnham, Fernando S. Goes, Maria Grigoroiu-Serbanescu, Paul Grof, Ryota Hashimoto, Joanna Hauser, Urs Heilbronner, Stefan Herms, Per Hoffmann, Andrea Hofmann, Liping Hou, Yi-Hsiang Hsu, Stephane Jamain, Esther Jiménez, Jean-Pierre Kahn, Layla Kassem, Po-Hsiu Kuo, Tadafumi Kato, John Kelsoe, Sarah Kittel-Schneider, Sebastian Kliwicki, Barbara König, Ichiro Kusumi, Gonzalo Laje, Mikael Landén, Catharina Lavebratt, Marion Leboyer, Susan G. Leckband, Mario Maj, the Major Depressive Disorder Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Mirko Manchia, Lina Martinsson, Michael J. McCarthy, Susan McElroy, Francesc Colom, Marina Mitjans, Francis M. Mondimore, Palmiero Monteleone, Caroline M. Nievergelt, Markus M. Nöthen, Tomas Novák, Claire O'Donovan, Norio Ozaki, Vincent Millischer, Sergi Papiol, Andrea Pfennig, Claudia Pisanu, James B. Potash, Andreas Reif, Eva Reininghaus, Guy A. Rouleau, Janusz K. Rybakowski, Martin Schalling, Peter R. Schofield, Barbara W. Schweizer, Giovanni Severino, Tatyana Shekhtman, Paul D. Shilling, Katzutaka Shimoda, Christian Simhandl, Claire M. Slaney, Alessio Squassina, Thomas Stamm, Pavla Stopkova, Fasil TekolaAyele, Alfonso Tortorella, Gustavo Turecki, Julia Veeh, Eduard Vieta, Stephanie H. Witt, Gloria Roberts, Peter P. Zandi, Martin Alda, Michael Bauer, Francis J. McMahon, Philip B. Mitchell, Thomas G. Schulze, Marcella Rietschel, Scott R. Clark, Bernhard T. Baune
-
- Journal:
- The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 221 / Issue 2 / August 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 04 May 2022, p. 494
- Print publication:
- August 2022
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
Using polygenic scores and clinical data for bipolar disorder patient stratification and lithium response prediction: machine learning approach
- Micah Cearns, Azmeraw T. Amare, Klaus Oliver Schubert, Anbupalam Thalamuthu, Joseph Frank, Fabian Streit, Mazda Adli, Nirmala Akula, Kazufumi Akiyama, Raffaella Ardau, Bárbara Arias, Jean-Michel Aubry, Lena Backlund, Abesh Kumar Bhattacharjee, Frank Bellivier, Antonio Benabarre, Susanne Bengesser, Joanna M. Biernacka, Armin Birner, Clara Brichant-Petitjean, Pablo Cervantes, Hsi-Chung Chen, Caterina Chillotti, Sven Cichon, Cristiana Cruceanu, Piotr M. Czerski, Nina Dalkner, Alexandre Dayer, Franziska Degenhardt, Maria Del Zompo, J. Raymond DePaulo, Bruno Étain, Peter Falkai, Andreas J. Forstner, Louise Frisen, Mark A. Frye, Janice M. Fullerton, Sébastien Gard, Julie S. Garnham, Fernando S. Goes, Maria Grigoroiu-Serbanescu, Paul Grof, Ryota Hashimoto, Joanna Hauser, Urs Heilbronner, Stefan Herms, Per Hoffmann, Andrea Hofmann, Liping Hou, Yi-Hsiang Hsu, Stephane Jamain, Esther Jiménez, Jean-Pierre Kahn, Layla Kassem, Po-Hsiu Kuo, Tadafumi Kato, John Kelsoe, Sarah Kittel-Schneider, Sebastian Kliwicki, Barbara König, Ichiro Kusumi, Gonzalo Laje, Mikael Landén, Catharina Lavebratt, Marion Leboyer, Susan G. Leckband, Mario Maj, the Major Depressive Disorder Working Group of the Psychiatric Genomics Consortium, Mirko Manchia, Lina Martinsson, Michael J. McCarthy, Susan McElroy, Francesc Colom, Marina Mitjans, Francis M. Mondimore, Palmiero Monteleone, Caroline M. Nievergelt, Markus M. Nöthen, Tomas Novák, Claire O'Donovan, Norio Ozaki, Vincent Millischer, Sergi Papiol, Andrea Pfennig, Claudia Pisanu, James B. Potash, Andreas Reif, Eva Reininghaus, Guy A. Rouleau, Janusz K. Rybakowski, Martin Schalling, Peter R. Schofield, Barbara W. Schweizer, Giovanni Severino, Tatyana Shekhtman, Paul D. Shilling, Katzutaka Shimoda, Christian Simhandl, Claire M. Slaney, Alessio Squassina, Thomas Stamm, Pavla Stopkova, Fasil Tekola-Ayele, Alfonso Tortorella, Gustavo Turecki, Julia Veeh, Eduard Vieta, Stephanie H. Witt, Gloria Roberts, Peter P. Zandi, Martin Alda, Michael Bauer, Francis J. McMahon, Philip B. Mitchell, Thomas G. Schulze, Marcella Rietschel, Scott R. Clark, Bernhard T. Baune
-
- Journal:
- The British Journal of Psychiatry / Volume 220 / Issue 4 / April 2022
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 28 February 2022, pp. 219-228
- Print publication:
- April 2022
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Background
Response to lithium in patients with bipolar disorder is associated with clinical and transdiagnostic genetic factors. The predictive combination of these variables might help clinicians better predict which patients will respond to lithium treatment.
AimsTo use a combination of transdiagnostic genetic and clinical factors to predict lithium response in patients with bipolar disorder.
MethodThis study utilised genetic and clinical data (n = 1034) collected as part of the International Consortium on Lithium Genetics (ConLi+Gen) project. Polygenic risk scores (PRS) were computed for schizophrenia and major depressive disorder, and then combined with clinical variables using a cross-validated machine-learning regression approach. Unimodal, multimodal and genetically stratified models were trained and validated using ridge, elastic net and random forest regression on 692 patients with bipolar disorder from ten study sites using leave-site-out cross-validation. All models were then tested on an independent test set of 342 patients. The best performing models were then tested in a classification framework.
ResultsThe best performing linear model explained 5.1% (P = 0.0001) of variance in lithium response and was composed of clinical variables, PRS variables and interaction terms between them. The best performing non-linear model used only clinical variables and explained 8.1% (P = 0.0001) of variance in lithium response. A priori genomic stratification improved non-linear model performance to 13.7% (P = 0.0001) and improved the binary classification of lithium response. This model stratified patients based on their meta-polygenic loadings for major depressive disorder and schizophrenia and was then trained using clinical data.
ConclusionsUsing PRS to first stratify patients genetically and then train machine-learning models with clinical predictors led to large improvements in lithium response prediction. When used with other PRS and biological markers in the future this approach may help inform which patients are most likely to respond to lithium treatment.
Ten new insights in climate science 2021: a horizon scan
- Maria A. Martin, Olga Alcaraz Sendra, Ana Bastos, Nico Bauer, Christoph Bertram, Thorsten Blenckner, Kathryn Bowen, Paulo M. Brando, Tanya Brodie Rudolph, Milena Büchs, Mercedes Bustamante, Deliang Chen, Helen Cleugh, Purnamita Dasgupta, Fatima Denton, Jonathan F. Donges, Felix Kwabena Donkor, Hongbo Duan, Carlos M. Duarte, Kristie L. Ebi, Clea M. Edwards, Anja Engel, Eleanor Fisher, Sabine Fuss, Juliana Gaertner, Andrew Gettelman, Cécile A.J. Girardin, Nicholas R. Golledge, Jessica F. Green, Michael R. Grose, Masahiro Hashizume, Sophie Hebden, Helmke Hepach, Marina Hirota, Huang-Hsiung Hsu, Satoshi Kojima, Sharachchandra Lele, Sylvia Lorek, Heike K. Lotze, H. Damon Matthews, Darren McCauley, Desta Mebratu, Nadine Mengis, Rachael H. Nolan, Erik Pihl, Stefan Rahmstorf, Aaron Redman, Colleen E. Reid, Johan Rockström, Joeri Rogelj, Marielle Saunois, Lizzie Sayer, Peter Schlosser, Giles B. Sioen, Joachim H. Spangenberg, Detlef Stammer, Thomas N.S. Sterner, Nicola Stevens, Kirsten Thonicke, Hanqin Tian, Ricarda Winkelmann, James Woodcock
-
- Journal:
- Global Sustainability / Volume 4 / 2021
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 18 October 2021, e25
-
- Article
-
- You have access Access
- Open access
- HTML
- Export citation
-
Non-technical summary
We summarize some of the past year's most important findings within climate change-related research. New research has improved our understanding about the remaining options to achieve the Paris Agreement goals, through overcoming political barriers to carbon pricing, taking into account non-CO2 factors, a well-designed implementation of demand-side and nature-based solutions, resilience building of ecosystems and the recognition that climate change mitigation costs can be justified by benefits to the health of humans and nature alone. We consider new insights about what to expect if we fail to include a new dimension of fire extremes and the prospect of cascading climate tipping elements.
Technical summaryA synthesis is made of 10 topics within climate research, where there have been significant advances since January 2020. The insights are based on input from an international open call with broad disciplinary scope. Findings include: (1) the options to still keep global warming below 1.5 °C; (2) the impact of non-CO2 factors in global warming; (3) a new dimension of fire extremes forced by climate change; (4) the increasing pressure on interconnected climate tipping elements; (5) the dimensions of climate justice; (6) political challenges impeding the effectiveness of carbon pricing; (7) demand-side solutions as vehicles of climate mitigation; (8) the potentials and caveats of nature-based solutions; (9) how building resilience of marine ecosystems is possible; and (10) that the costs of climate change mitigation policies can be more than justified by the benefits to the health of humans and nature.
Social media summaryHow do we limit global warming to 1.5 °C and why is it crucial? See highlights of latest climate science.
Multivariate Base Rates of Low Scores and Reliable Decline on ImPACT in Healthy Collegiate Athletes Using CARE Consortium Norms
- Zac M. Houck, Breton M. Asken, Russell M. Bauer, Anthony P. Kontos, Michael A. McCrea, Thomas W. McAllister, Steven P. Broglio, James R. Clugston, Care Consortium Investigators
-
- Journal:
- Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society / Volume 25 / Issue 9 / October 2019
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 05 July 2019, pp. 961-971
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
Objectives: To describe multivariate base rates (MBRs) of low scores and reliable change (decline) scores on Immediate Post-Concussion Assessment and Cognitive Testing (ImPACT) in college athletes at baseline, as well as to assess MBR differences among demographic and medical history subpopulations. Methods: Data were reported on 15,909 participants (46.5% female) from the NCAA/DoD CARE Consortium. MBRs of ImPACT composite scores were derived using published CARE normative data and reliability metrics. MBRs of sex-corrected low scores were reported at <25th percentile (Low Average), <10th percentile (Borderline), and ≤2nd percentile (Impaired). MBRs of reliable decline scores were reported at the 75%, 90%, 95%, and 99% confidence intervals. We analyzed subgroups by sex, race, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and/or learning disability (ADHD/LD), anxiety/depression, and concussion history using chi-square analyses. Results: Base rates of low scores and reliable decline scores on individual composites approximated the normative distribution. Athletes obtained ≥1 low score with frequencies of 63.4% (Low Average), 32.0% (Borderline), and 9.1% (Impaired). Athletes obtained ≥1 reliable decline score with frequencies of 66.8%, 32.2%, 18%, and 3.8%, respectively. Comparatively few athletes had low scores or reliable decline on ≥2 composite scores. Black/African American athletes and athletes with ADHD/LD had higher rates of low scores, while greater concussion history was associated with lower MBRs (p < .01). MBRs of reliable decline were not associated with demographic or medical factors. Conclusions: Clinical interpretation of low scores and reliable decline on ImPACT depends on the strictness of the low score cutoff, the reliable change criterion, and the number of scores exceeding these cutoffs. Race and ADHD influence the frequency of low scores at all cutoffs cross-sectionally.
Contributors
-
- By Alaa A. Abd-Elsayed, Basem Abdelmalak, Kalil G. Abdullah, Maged Argalious, Rafi Avitsian, Maria Bauer, Edward C. Benzel, Dani S. Bidros, William Bingaman, Jay B. Brodsky, David Brown, Patrick M. Callahan, Juan P. Cata, Chakorn Chansakul, Jianguo Cheng, Jeffrey G. Clark, Peter J. Davis, Stacie Deiner, Xiao Di, Karen B. Domino, D. John Doyle, Zeyd Ebrahim, Ehab Farag, Gordon Finlayson, Elizabeth A. M. Frost, Matthew Grosso, David P. Gurd, Rodolfo Hakim, Robert Helfand, Iain H. Kalfas, Rami Karroum, Michael Kelly, Stephen J. Kimatian, Christian Koopman, Ajit A. Krishnaney, Andrea Kurz, Lorri A. Lee, Brian P. Lemkuil, James K. C. Liu, Sara P. Lozano, Daniel Lubelski, Mark Luciano, Ramez Malaty, Mariel R. Manlapaz, Edward M. Manno, Virgilio Matheus, Robert F. McLain, Nagy Mekhail, Doksu Moon, Loran Soliman Mounir, Raghu Mudumbai, Thomas E. Mroz, Dileep R. Nair, Julie Niezgoda, R. Douglas Orr, Piyush M. Patel, Jason E. Pope, Manuel Saavedra, Kenneth J. Saliba, Richard Schlenk, John Seif, John H. Shin, Jeffrey Silverstein, Dmitri Souzdalnitski, Michael Steinmetz, Tunga Suresh, John E. Tetzlaff, Sherif Zaky
- Edited by Ehab Farag
-
- Book:
- Anesthesia for Spine Surgery
- Published online:
- 05 June 2012
- Print publication:
- 17 May 2012, pp ix-xii
-
- Chapter
- Export citation
Looking Backward, Looking Forward: MLA Members Speak
- April Alliston, Elizabeth Ammons, Jean Arnold, Nina Baym, Sandra L. Beckett, Peter G. Beidler, Roger A. Berger, Sandra Bermann, J.J. Wilson, Troy Boone, Alison Booth, Wayne C. Booth, James Phelan, Marie Borroff, Ihab Hassan, Ulrich Weisstein, Zack Bowen, Jill Campbell, Dan Campion, Jay Caplan, Maurice Charney, Beverly Lyon Clark, Robert A. Colby, Thomas C. Coleman III, Nicole Cooley, Richard Dellamora, Morris Dickstein, Terrell Dixon, Emory Elliott, Caryl Emerson, Ann W. Engar, Lars Engle, Kai Hammermeister, N. N. Feltes, Mary Anne Ferguson, Annie Finch, Shelley Fisher Fishkin, Jerry Aline Flieger, Norman Friedman, Rosemarie Garland-Thomson, Sandra M. Gilbert, Laurie Grobman, George Guida, Liselotte Gumpel, R. K. Gupta, Florence Howe, Cathy L. Jrade, Richard A. Kaye, Calhoun Winton, Murray Krieger, Robert Langbaum, Richard A. Lanham, Marilee Lindemann, Paul Michael Lützeler, Thomas J. Lynn, Juliet Flower MacCannell, Michelle A. Massé, Irving Massey, Georges May, Christian W. Hallstein, Gita May, Lucy McDiarmid, Ellen Messer-Davidow, Koritha Mitchell, Robin Smiles, Kenyatta Albeny, George Monteiro, Joel Myerson, Alan Nadel, Ashton Nichols, Jeffrey Nishimura, Neal Oxenhandler, David Palumbo-Liu, Vincent P. Pecora, David Porter, Nancy Potter, Ronald C. Rosbottom, Elias L. Rivers, Gerhard F. Strasser, J. L. Styan, Marianna De Marco Torgovnick, Gary Totten, David van Leer, Asha Varadharajan, Orrin N. C. Wang, Sharon Willis, Louise E. Wright, Donald A. Yates, Takayuki Yokota-Murakami, Richard E. Zeikowitz, Angelika Bammer, Dale Bauer, Karl Beckson, Betsy A. Bowen, Stacey Donohue, Sheila Emerson, Gwendolyn Audrey Foster, Jay L. Halio, Karl Kroeber, Terence Hawkes, William B. Hunter, Mary Jambus, Willard F. King, Nancy K. Miller, Jody Norton, Ann Pellegrini, S. P. Rosenbaum, Lorie Roth, Robert Scholes, Joanne Shattock, Rosemary T. VanArsdel, Alfred Bendixen, Alarma Kathleen Brown, Michael J. Kiskis, Debra A. Castillo, Rey Chow, John F. Crossen, Robert F. Fleissner, Regenia Gagnier, Nicholas Howe, M. Thomas Inge, Frank Mehring, Hyungji Park, Jahan Ramazani, Kenneth M. Roemer, Deborah D. Rogers, A. LaVonne Brown Ruoff, Regina M. Schwartz, John T. Shawcross, Brenda R. Silver, Andrew von Hendy, Virginia Wright Wexman, Britta Zangen, A. Owen Aldridge, Paula R. Backscheider, Roland Bartel, E. M. Forster, Milton Birnbaum, Jonathan Bishop, Crystal Downing, Frank H. Ellis, Roberto Forns-Broggi, James R. Giles, Mary E. Giles, Susan Blair Green, Madelyn Gutwirth, Constance B. Hieatt, Titi Adepitan, Edgar C. Knowlton, Jr., Emanuel Mussman, Sally Todd Nelson, Robert O. Preyer, David Diego Rodriguez, Guy Stern, James Thorpe, Robert J. Wilson, Rebecca S. Beal, Joyce Simutis, Betsy Bowden, Sara Cooper, Wheeler Winston Dixon, Tarek el Ariss, Richard Jewell, John W. Kronik, Wendy Martin, Stuart Y. McDougal, Hugo Méndez-Ramírez, Ivy Schweitzer, Armand E. Singer, G. Thomas Tanselle, Tom Bishop, Mary Ann Caws, Marcel Gutwirth, Christophe Ippolito, Lawrence D. Kritzman, James Longenbach, Tim McCracken, Wolfe S. Molitor, Diane Quantic, Gregory Rabassa, Ellen M. Tsagaris, Anthony C. Yu, Betty Jean Craige, Wendell V. Harris, J. Hillis Miller, Jesse G. Swan, Helene Zimmer-Loew, Peter Berek, James Chandler, Hanna K. Charney, Philip Cohen, Judith Fetterley, Herbert Lindenberger, Julia Reinhard Lupton, Maximillian E. Novak, Richard Ohmann, Marjorie Perloff, Mark Reynolds, James Sledd, Harriet Turner, Marie Umeh, Flavia Aloya, Regina Barreca, Konrad Bieber, Ellis Hanson, William J. Hyde, Holly A. Laird, David Leverenz, Allen Michie, J. Wesley Miller, Marvin Rosenberg, Daniel R. Schwarz, Elizabeth Welt Trahan, Jean Fagan Yellin
-
- Journal:
- PMLA / Publications of the Modern Language Association of America / Volume 115 / Issue 7 / December 2000
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 23 October 2020, pp. 1986-2078
- Print publication:
- December 2000
-
- Article
- Export citation
Environmental Review: Characteristics of Collaborative Environmental Planning and Decision-Making Processes
- Michael R. Bauer, John Randolph
-
- Journal:
- Environmental Practice / Volume 2 / Issue 2 / June 2000
- Published online by Cambridge University Press:
- 13 July 2009, pp. 156-165
- Print publication:
- June 2000
-
- Article
- Export citation
-
In recognition of the limitations of strict, objective, instrumental decision making, government agencies, businesses, communities, and environmental groups are beginning to use concepts of participatory democracy and social learning in planning and decision-making processes. Information and power are shared among affected interests so that decisions can be reached that are supported by all parties to the process. This collaboration engages parties in mutual planning and decision making. Providing a forum for discussion that permits diverse points of view to be aired leads to joint problem solving. An open dialogue can demonstrate that opposing parties may actually share certain interests. In an effort to determine some characteristics and common threads in collaborative planning and decision making, this study examined 76 cases of environmental management described as involving overlapping or competing interests. Many of the reviewed case studies offered evidence that the following basic elements of collaboration were included: the establishment of a formal organization, the sharing of information among all participants, the open discussion of all matters by all participants, and the sharing of power among all participants. Organization formation (86% of the cases) and information sharing (80%) appear to be fundamental to collaborative planning and decision making. However, power sharing (65%) and open discussions (54%) were indicated in fewer cases and are likely to be more difficult to achieve.