Short-term outcomes of patients with neovascular exudative AMD: the effect of COVID-19 pandemic

Graefe's Archive for Clinical and Experimental Ophthalmology - To estimate the impact of delayed care during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the outcomes of patients with...     

Tractostorm: The what,why, and how of tractography dissection reproducibility

Investigative studies of white matter (WM) brain structures using diffusion MRI (dMRI) tractography frequently require manual WM bundle segmentation, often called “virtual dissection.” Human errors and personal decisions make these manual segmentations hard to reproduce, which have not yet been quantified by the dMRI community. It is our opinion that if the field of dMRI tractography wants to be taken seriously as a widespread clinical tool, it is imperative to harmonize WM bundle segmentations and develop protocols aimed to be used in clinical settings. The EADC‐ADNI Harmonized Hippocampal Protocol achieved such standardization through a series of steps that must be reproduced for every WM bundle. This article is an observation of the problematic. A specific bundle segmentation protocol was used in order to provide a real‐life example, but the contribution of this article is to discuss the need for reproducibility and standardized protocol, as for any measurement tool. This study required the participation of 11 experts and 13 nonexperts in neuroanatomy and “virtual dissection” across various laboratories and hospitals. Intra‐rater agreement (Dice score) was approximately 0.77, while inter‐rater was approximately 0.65. The protocol provided to participants was not necessarily optimal, but its design mimics, in essence, what will be required in future protocols. Reporting tractometry results such as average fractional anisotropy, volume or streamline count of a particular bundle without a sufficient reproducibility score could make the analysis and interpretations more difficult. Coordinated efforts by the diffusion MRI tractography community are needed to quantify and account for reproducibility of WM bundle extraction protocols in this era of open and collaborative science.     

Work hazards and workers’ mental health: an investigation based on the fifth European Working Conditions Survey

Background:Workplace hazards are a significant source of health impairment for workers and of financial losses for firms. EU directives on workers’ health and safety standards significantly contributed to reduce reported occupational injuries, yet the incidence and prevalence of work-related mental illness is still very high.Objectives:We investigated the association between work-related hazards and individuals’ perceived mental health. We reviewed the existing evidence on the channels through which task-related factors, adverse agents and psychosocial factors are expected to affect workers’ health, with specific regard to mental health.Methods:We used data from the fifth wave of the European Working Conditions Survey, covering over 40,000 face-to-face interviews with workers in 34 countries, which includes information on socio-demographic characteristics, firms and jobs attributes, employment status, as well as working conditions and health status. We carried out an empirical analysis with multivariate regression models in order to estimate the relationship between workers’ mental health problems and workplace risk factors.Results:21,020 interviews were used in the multivariate analysis. We found strong correlations between hazards and various indicators of mental health. Among hazardous agents, low temperatures (β=0.0287) and contact with infectious materials (β=0.0394) were positively associated with mental health outcomes. Among task/sequence-related factors, tiring or painful positions (β=0.0713), repetitive hand/arm movements (β=0.0255), working with VDUs (β=0.0301), repetitive tasks <10 min (β=0.0859) and working in evenings (β=0.00754) were positively associated with mental health. Various psychosocial risk factors related to both the content of the job (for example, frequent disruptive interruptions: β=0.219, working in free time: β=0.0759, poor work-life balance: β=0.228) as well as the job context (for example, bad employment prospects: β=0.177, low decisional autonomy: β=0.245, bad social relations: β=0.186, workplace violence: β=0.411) were positively associated with mental health. The main results of the decomposition show that an important contribution to workers’ overall mental distress at work is associated with psychosocial risk factors (up to 60% for depression/anxiety symptoms and sleep disorders), while the contribution of somatic factors is on average lower (up to 20% for overall fatigue).Conclusions:We argue that action is needed to improve workers’ mental well-being, and reduce the economic costs for both the national health system and employers. Regulations and traditional economic measures are unlikely to prove successful in providing adequate standards of primary and secondary preventive measures in the work place without an appropriate and reliable Risk Assessment Procedure.Key words: Work hazards, risk assessment, job content, mental health