Facial expression recognition in Alzheimer’s disease: A systematic review

Introduction: It is well established that behavioral variant frontotemporal dementia can impair social and emotional function. However, there is no consensus regarding how Alzheimer’s disease can affect facial expression recognition. We aim to systematically review all the literature addressing this issue over the last 10 years.

Method: We conducted a search based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). The search for literature was undertaken on 19 September 2017, using Pubmed, SciELO, BIREME, and Thomson Reuters Web of Science electronic databases. The key terms for the search were: Alzheimer’s disease, dementia, and facial expression recognition.

Results: We screened 173 articles, and 22 of them were selected. The most common methodology involved showing participants photographs of people expressing the six basic emotions—fear, anger, sadness, disgust, surprise, and happiness. Results were ambiguous. Among people with mild Alzheimer’s disease, happiness was easier to recognize than the other five basic emotions, with sadness and anger the most difficult to recognize. In addition, the intensity level of the emotions presented seems to be important, and facial expression recognition is related to specific cognitive capacities, including executive function and visuoperceptual abilities. Impairment in facial expression recognition does not appear to be a consistent neuropsychological finding in Alzheimer’s disease.

Conclusions: The lack of standardized assessment instruments and the heterogeneity of the methods and samples used across studies hamper comparisons. Future researches should investigate facial expression recognition through more ecological and standardized methods.     

The Chinese National Twin Registry: a ‘gold mine’ for scientific research

The Chinese National Twin Registry (CNTR) currently includes data from 61 566 twin pair from 11 provinces or cities in China. Of these, 31 705, 15 060 and 13 531 pairs are monozygotic, same‐sex dizygotic and opposite‐sex dizygotic pairs, respectively, determined by opposite sex or intrapair similarity. Since its establishment in 2001, the CNTR has provided an important resource for analysing genetic and environmental influences on chronic diseases especially cardiovascular diseases. Recently, the CNTR has focused on collecting biologic specimens from disease‐concordant or disease‐discordant twin pairs or from twin pairs reared apart. More than 8000 pairs of these twins have been registered, and blood samples have been collected from more than 1500 pairs. In this review, we summarize the main findings from univariate and multivariate genetic effects analyses, gene–environment interaction studies, omics studies exploring DNA methylation and metabolomic markers associated with phenotypes. There remains further scope for CNTR research and data mining. The plan for future development of the CNTR is described. The CNTR welcomes worldwide collaboration.     

Simethicone use during gastrointestinal endoscopy: Position statement of the Gastroenterological Society of Australia

Concern has been raised regarding the use of simethicone, a de‐foaming agent, during endoscopic procedures. Following reports of simethicone residue in endoscope channels despite high level disinfection, an endoscope manufacturer recommended that it not be used due to concerns of biofilm formation and a possible increased risk of microorganism transmission. However, a detailed mucosal assessment is essential in performing high‐standard endoscopic procedures. This is impaired by bubbles within the gastrointestinal lumen. The Gastroenterological Society of Australia's Infection Control in Endoscopy Guidelines (ICEG) Committee conducted a literature search utilizing the MEDLINE database. Further references were sourced from published paper bibliographies. Following a review of the available evidence, and drawing on extensive clinical experience, the multidisciplinary ICEG committee considered the risks and benefits of simethicone use in formulating four recommendations. Published reports have documented residual liquid or crystalline simethicone in endoscope channels after high level disinfection. There are no data confirming that simethicone can be cleared from channels by brushing. Multiple series report benefits of simethicone use during gastroscopy and colonoscopy in improving mucosal assessment, adenoma detection rate, and reducing procedure time. There are no published reports of adverse events related specifically to the use of simethicone, delivered either orally or via any endoscope channel. An assessment of the risks and benefits supports the continued use of simethicone during endoscopic procedures. Strict adherence to instrument reprocessing protocols is essential.