Search

We present quantitative reconstructions of regional vegetation cover in north-western Europe, western Europe north of the Alps, and eastern Europe for five time windows in the Holocene [around 6k, 3k, 0.5k, 0.2k, and 0.05k calendar years before present ( bp)] at a 1° × 1° spatial scale with the objective of producing vegetation descriptions suitable for climate modelling. The REVEALS model was applied on 636 pollen records from lakes and bogs to reconstruct the past cover of 25 plant taxa grouped into 10 plant-functional types and three land-cover types [evergreen trees, summer-green (deciduous) trees, and open land]. The model corrects for some of the biases in pollen percentages by using pollen productivity estimates and fall speeds of pollen, and by applying simple but robust models of pollen dispersal and deposition. The emerging patterns of tree migration and deforestation between 6k bp and modern time in the REVEALS estimates agree with our general understanding of the vegetation history of Europe based on pollen percentages. However, the degree of anthropogenic deforestation (i.e. cover of cultivated and grazing land) at 3k, 0.5k, and 0.2k bp is significantly higher than deduced from pollen percentages. This is also the case at 6k in some parts of Europe, in particular Britain and Ireland. Furthermore, the relationship between summer-green and evergreen trees, and between individual tree taxa, differs significantly when expressed as pollen percentages or as REVEALS estimates of tree cover. For instance, when Pinus is dominant over Picea as pollen percentages, Picea is dominant over Pinus as REVEALS estimates. These differences play a major role in the reconstruction of European landscapes and for the study of land cover-climate interactions, biodiversity and human resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The therapeutic use of opioids can be associated with altered cognition and impaired psychomotor function. Several studies have demonstrated the impact of opioid therapy on psychomotor performance and cognition, but no data exist about the effect of long-term treatment with controlled release oxycodone (CRO) on driving ability., Methods: Thirty patients suffering from chronic non-cancer pain who had been treated with stable doses of CRO where included in a prospective trial and compared with 90 healthy volunteers (matched pairs). A computerized test battery that was developed to assess the driving ability of traffic delinquents in Germany was employed. Attention reaction, visual orientation, motor coordination and vigilance were evaluated. The data from a total of 11 parameters were assessed and for each test a relevant score was defined. As the primary endpoint the sum score of the three relevant scores was determined. A weaker statistical means to assess the patients' performance is to compare the test results with an age-independent control group. Individuals performing worse than the 16th percentile of this control group are considered to be unable to drive according to German legislation., Results: Significant non-inferiority could not be demonstrated for the primary endpoint. However, driving ability as defined as a result above the 16th percentile did not differ significantly between the patients receiving CRO and the age-independent control group., Conclusion: The use of CRO does not prohibit driving, but individual assessment is necessary.

Objective: Individuals with chronic pain frequently display comorbid depression, but the impact of symptoms of depression on pain processing is not completely understood. This study evaluated the effect of symptoms of depression and/or clinically diagnosed major depressive disorder (MDD) on pain processing in patients with fibromyalgia (FM)., Methods: Results of quantitative sensory testing and neural responses to equally painful pressure stimuli (measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging [fMRI]) were compared with the levels of symptoms of depression and comorbid MDD among patients with FM., Results: Neither the level of symptoms of depression nor the presence of comorbid MDD was associated with the results of sensory testing or the magnitude of neuronal activation in brain areas associated with the sensory dimension of pain (primary and secondary somatosensory cortices). However, symptoms of depression and the presence of MDD were associated with the magnitude of pain-evoked neuronal activations in brain regions associated with affective pain processing (the amygdalae and contralateral anterior insula). Clinical pain intensity was associated with measures of both the sensory dimension of pain (results of sensory testing) and the affective dimension of pain (activations in the insula bilaterally, contralateral anterior cingulate cortex, and prefrontal cortex)., Conclusion: In patients with FM, neither the extent of depression nor the presence of comorbid major depression modulates the sensory-discriminative aspects of pain processing (i.e., localizing pain and reporting its level of intensity), as measured by sensory testing or fMRI. However, depression is associated with the magnitude of neuronal activation in brain regions that process the affective-motivational dimension of pain. These data suggest that there are parallel, somewhat independent neural pain-processing networks for sensory and affective pain elements. The implication for treatment is that addressing an individual's depression (e.g., by prescribing an antidepressant medication that has no analgesic properties) will not necessarily have an impact on the sensory dimension of pain.

Objective: For many individuals with chronic low back pain (CLBP), there is no identifiable cause. In other idiopathic chronic pain conditions, sensory testing and functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) have identified the occurrence of generalized increased pain sensitivity, hyperalgesia, and altered brain processing, suggesting central augmentation of pain processing in such conditions. We compared the results of both of these methods as applied to patients with idiopathic CLBP (n = 11), patients with widespread pain (fibromyalgia; n = 16), and healthy control subjects (n = 11)., Methods: Patients with CLBP had low back pain persisting for at least 12 months that was unexplained by MRI/radiographic changes. Experimental pain testing was performed at a neutral site (thumbnail) to assess the pressure-pain threshold in all subjects. For fMRI studies, stimuli of equal pressure (2 kg) and of equal subjective pain intensity (slightly intense pain) were applied to this same site., Results: Despite low numbers of tender points in the CLBP group, experimental pain testing revealed hyperalgesia in this group as well as in the fibromyalgia group; the pressure required to produce slightly intense pain was significantly higher in the controls (5.6 kg) than in the patients with CLBP (3.9 kg) (P = 0.03) or the patients with fibromyalgia (3.5 kg) (P = 0.006). When equal amounts of pressure were applied to the 3 groups, fMRI detected 5 common regions of neuronal activation in pain-related cortical areas in the CLBP and fibromyalgia groups (in the contralateral primary and secondary [S2] somatosensory cortices, inferior parietal lobule, cerebellum, and ipsilateral S2). This same stimulus resulted in only a single activation in controls (in the contralateral S2 somatosensory cortex). When subjects in the 3 groups received stimuli that evoked subjectively equal pain, fMRI revealed common neuronal activations in all 3 groups., Conclusion: At equal levels of pressure, patients with CLBP or fibromyalgia experienced significantly more pain and showed more extensive, common patterns of neuronal activation in pain-related cortical areas. When stimuli that elicited equally painful responses were applied (requiring significantly lower pressure in both patient groups as compared with the control group), neuronal activations were similar among the 3 groups. These findings are consistent with the occurrence of augmented central pain processing in patients with idiopathic CLBP.

Objective: Although the American College of Rheumatology (ACR) criteria for fibromyalgia are used to identify individuals with both widespread pain and tenderness, individuals who meet these criteria are not a homogeneous group. Patients differ in their accompanying clinical symptoms, as well as in the relative contributions of biologic, psychological, and cognitive factors to their symptom expression. Therefore, it seems useful to identify subsets of fibromyalgia patients on the basis of which of these factors are present. Previous attempts at identifying subsets have been based solely on psychological and cognitive features. In this study, we attempt to identify patient subsets by incorporating these features as well as the degree of hyperalgesia/tenderness, which is a key neurobiologic feature of this illness., Methods: Ninety-seven individuals meeting the ACR criteria for fibromyalgia finished the same battery of self-report and evoked-pain testing. Analyzed variables were obtained from several domains, consisting of 1) mood (evaluated by the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale [for depression] and the State-Trait Personality Inventory [for symptoms of trait-related anxiety]), 2) cognition (by the catastrophizing and control of pain subscales of the Coping Strategies Questionnaire), and 3) hyperalgesia/tenderness (by dolorimetry and random pressure-pain applied at suprathreshold values). Cluster analytic procedures were used to distinguish subgroups of fibromyalgia patients based on these domains., Results: Three clusters best fit the data. Multivariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) confirmed that each variable was differentiated by the cluster solution (Wilks' lambda [degrees of freedom 6,89] = 0.123, P < 0.0001), with univariate ANOVAs also indicating significant differences (all P < 0.05). One subgroup of patients (n = 50) was characterized by moderate mood ratings, moderate levels of catastrophizing and perceived control over pain, and low levels of tenderness. A second subgroup (n = 31) displayed significantly elevated values on the mood assessments, the highest values on the catastrophizing subscale, the lowest values for perceived control over pain, and high levels of tenderness. The third group (n = 16) had normal mood ratings, very low levels of catastrophizing, and the highest level of perceived control over pain, but these subjects showed extreme tenderness on evoked-pain testing., Conclusion: These data help support the clinical impression that there are distinct subgroups of patients with fibromyalgia. There appears to be a group of fibromyalgia patients who exhibit extreme tenderness but lack any associated psychological/cognitive factors, an intermediate group who display moderate tenderness and have normal mood, and a group in whom mood and cognitive factors may be significantly influencing the symptom report.