Search

Contains fulltext : 247442.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access), Background: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is characterized by neurobiological heterogeneity, possibly explaining why not all patients benefit from a given treatment. As a means to select the right treatment (stratification), biomarkers may aid in personalizing treatment prescription, thereby increasing remission rates. Methods: The biomarker in this study was developed in a heterogeneous clinical sample (N=4249), and first applied to two large transfer datasets, a priori stratifying young males (<18 years) with a higher individual alpha peak frequency (iAPF) to methylphenidate (N=336) and those with a lower iAPF to multimodal Neurofeedback, complemented with sleep coaching (N=136). Blinded, out-of-sample validations were conducted in two independent samples. In addition, the association between iAPF and response to Guanfacine and Atomoxetine was explored. Results: Retrospective stratification in the transfer datasets resulted in a predicted gain in normalized remission of 17-30%. Blinded out-of-sample validations for methylphenidate (N=41) and multimodal Neurofeedback (N=71) corroborated these findings, yielding a predicted gain in stratified normalized remission of 36% and 29%, respectively. Conclusion: The present study introduces a clinically interpretable and actionable biomarker based on the iAPF assessed during resting-state electroencephalography. Our findings suggest that acknowledging neurobiological heterogeneity can inform stratification of patients to their individual best treatment and enhance remission rates.

28 februari 2022, Item does not contain fulltext, Background: Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder is characterized by neurobiological heterogeneity, possibly explaining why not all patients benefit from a given treatment. As a means to select the right treatment (stratification), biomarkers may aid in personalizing treatment prescription, thereby increasing remission rates. Methods: The biomarker in this study was developed in a heterogeneous clinical sample (N=4249), and first applied to two large transfer datasets, a priori stratifying young males (<18 years) with a higher individual alpha peak frequency (iAPF) to methylphenidate (N=336) and those with a lower iAPF to multimodal Neurofeedback, complemented with sleep coaching (N=136). Blinded, out-of-sample validations were conducted in two independent samples. In addition, the association between iAPF and response to Guanfacine and Atomoxetine was explored. Results: Retrospective stratification in the transfer datasets resulted in a predicted gain in normalized remission of 17-30%. Blinded out-of-sample validations for methylphenidate (N=41) and multimodal Neurofeedback (N=71) corroborated these findings, yielding a predicted gain in stratified normalized remission of 36% and 29%, respectively. Conclusion: The present study introduces a clinically interpretable and actionable biomarker based on the iAPF assessed during resting-state electroencephalography. Our findings suggest that acknowledging neurobiological heterogeneity can inform stratification of patients to their individual best treatment and enhance remission rates.

Item does not contain fulltext

Contains fulltext : 240290.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

28 maart 2018, Contains fulltext : 198106.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access)

Contains fulltext : 203360.pdf (publisher's version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 237240.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 293425.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Open Access)

Contains fulltext : 181954.pdf (publisher's version ) (Closed access), This paper argues that violent conflict prominently impacts on land governance and so contributes to land conflicts in post-conflict settings. In the natural resources literature, the relationship between land and conflict is often explained in terms of environmental security or political ecology, and many have pointed out that the way land is governed in itself may be a source of conflict. However, less attention has been given to the effects of violent conflict on land and its governance in post-conflict situations. This paper argues that violent conflict affects land governance in many ways and that this in turn might contribute to further violent conflict. The argument builds around an extended case study of the Apaa evictions in Amuru District in Northern Uganda. The case illustrates how conflict around land is not just the result of resource scarcity and competition, but is the outcome of a combination of political, historical and social dynamics. Past policies on land and practices of land governance play a critical role in this. However at the same time, violent conflict has a critical impact on land access, transforms land governance authority and the rules applied. The land conflicts resulting from this, in turn, fuel ethnic tensions between local population groups, and grievances about those in power and the institutions that govern natural resources. The ways in which such problematic conflict-induced changes in land access and governance are dealt with by policymakers is critical for post-conflict stability.

Contains fulltext : 237245.pdf (Author’s version postprint ) (Open Access)

This paper argues that pastoral commons are under increasing pressure not just from overuse by pastoralists themselves, but from land management policies. Since colonial times, these have been based on a persistent misconception of the nature of pastoral economies and combined with increasing land alienation and fragmentation through government policies and covert privatisation of pastures. The paper focuses especially on pastoral populations in African drylands and is based on long-term research by independent researchers summarising some of their experiences in western, eastern and southern Africa. Most of them are organised in the African Drylands Dialogue, trying to shed some light on the developments in these areas. Before discussing the actual situation of African pastoralists, the authors focus on basic institutional features of the political and economic management of common grazing lands. This is followed by an overview of land alienation processes in colonial times, which serves as a basis for understanding the current land alienation constellations. The paper then moves on to explain how and why pastoralists are framed by the national discourses as the 'other' and the 'troublemaker', even being labelled as terrorists in nation state contexts. This goes hand in hand with a new wave of land alienation in the form of large-scala land acquisitions or 'land grabbing' (including water grabbing and 'green grabbing' processes). The paper then outlines different coping and adaptation strategies adopted by pastoral groups in a context in which a range of different global and local political, economic and ecological situations interrelate ('glocar). Finally, the paper discusses the way in which pastoralism could be refra med in a participatory way in the future.