Search

Which population factors have predisposed people to disregard government safety guidelines during the COVID-19 pandemic and what justifications do they give for this non-compliance? To address these questions, we analyse fixed-choice and free-text responses to survey questions about compliance and government handling of the pandemic, collected from tens of thousands of members of the UK public at three 6-monthly timepoints. We report that sceptical opinions about the government and mainstream-media narrative, especially as pertaining to justification for guidelines, significantly predict non-compliance. However, free text topic modelling shows that such opinions are diverse, spanning from scepticism about government competence and self-interest to full-blown conspiracy theories, and covary in prevalence with sociodemographic variables. These results indicate that attempts to counter non-compliance through argument should account for this diversity in peoples’ underlying opinions, and inform conversations aimed at bridging the gap between the general public and bodies of authority accordingly.

Summary: Background: Online technology could potentially revolutionise how patients are cognitively assessed and monitored. However, it remains unclear whether assessments conducted remotely can match established pen-and-paper neuropsychological tests in terms of sensitivity and specificity. Methods: This observational study aimed to optimise an online cognitive assessment for use in traumatic brain injury (TBI) clinics. The tertiary referral clinic in which this tool has been clinically implemented typically sees patients a minimum of 6 months post-injury in the chronic phase. Between March and August 2019, we conducted a cross-group, cross-device and factor analyses at the St. Mary’s Hospital TBI clinic and major trauma wards at Imperial College NHS trust and St. George’s Hospital in London (UK), to identify a battery of tasks that assess aspects of cognition affected by TBI. Between September 2019 and February 2020, we evaluated the online battery against standard face-to-face neuropsychological tests at the Imperial College London research centre. Canonical Correlation Analysis (CCA) determined the shared variance between the online battery and standard neuropsychological tests. Finally, between October 2020 and December 2021, the tests were integrated into a framework that automatically generates a results report where patients’ performance is compared to a large normative dataset. We piloted this as a practical tool to be used under supervised and unsupervised conditions at the St. Mary’s Hospital TBI clinic in London (UK). Findings: The online assessment discriminated processing-speed, visual-attention, working-memory, and executive-function deficits in TBI. CCA identified two significant modes indicating shared variance with standard neuropsychological tests (r = 0.86, p

Diffusion weighted imaging (DWI) is key in clinical neuroimaging studies. In recent years, DWI has undergone rapid evolution and increasing applications. Diffusion magnetic resonance imaging (dMRI) is widely used to analyse group-level differences in white matter (WM), but suffers from limitations that can be particularly impactful in clinical groups where 1) structural abnormalities may increase erroneous inter-subject registration and 2) subtle differences in WM microstructure between individuals can be missed. It also lacks standardization protocols for analyses at the subject level. Region of Interest (ROI) analyses in native diffusion space can help overcome these challenges, with manual segmentation still used as the gold standard. However, robust automated approaches for the analysis of ROI-extracted native diffusion characteristics are limited. Subject-Specific Diffusion Segmentation (SSDS) is an automated pipeline that uses pre-existing imaging analysis methods to carry out WM investigations in native diffusion space, while overcoming the need to interpolate diffusion images and using an intermediate T1 image to limit registration errors and guide segmentation. SSDS is validated in a cohort of healthy subjects scanned three times to derive test-retest reliability measures and compared to other methods, namely manual segmentation and tract-based spatial statistics as an example of group-level method. The performance of the pipeline is further tested in a clinical population of patients with traumatic brain injury and structural abnormalities. Mean FA values obtained from SSDS showed high test-retest and were similar to FA values estimated from the manual segmentation of the same ROIs (p-value > 0.1). The average dice similarity coefficients (DSCs) comparing results from SSDS and manual segmentations was 0.8 ± 0.1. Case studies of TBI patients showed robustness to the presence of significant structural abnormalities, indicating its potential clinical application in the identification and diagnosis of WM abnormalities. Further recommendation is given regarding the tracts used with SSDS.