Search

Data availability: Source data are not publicly available but non-commercial academic researcher requests may be made to the chief investigators of the seven source studies, subject to data access agreements and conditions that preserve participant anonymity. The underlying SuStaIn model code is publicly available at https://github.com/ucl-pond/pySuStaIn.68 . Supplementary data: available online at: https://academic.oup.com/braincomms/article/5/2/fcad048/7067775#398676040 . Copyright © The Author(s) 2023. To better understand the pathological and phenotypic heterogeneity of progressive supranuclear palsy and the links between the two, we applied a novel unsupervised machine learning algorithm (Subtype and Stage Inference) to the largest MRI data set to date of people with clinically diagnosed progressive supranuclear palsy (including progressive supranuclear palsy–Richardson and variant progressive supranuclear palsy syndromes). Our cohort is comprised of 426 progressive supranuclear palsy cases, of which 367 had at least one follow-up scan, and 290 controls. Of the progressive supranuclear palsy cases, 357 were clinically diagnosed with progressive supranuclear palsy–Richardson, 52 with a progressive supranuclear palsy–cortical variant (progressive supranuclear palsy–frontal, progressive supranuclear palsy–speech/language, or progressive supranuclear palsy–corticobasal), and 17 with a progressive supranuclear palsy–subcortical variant (progressive supranuclear palsy–parkinsonism or progressive supranuclear palsy–progressive gait freezing). Subtype and Stage Inference was applied to volumetric MRI features extracted from baseline structural (T1-weighted) MRI scans and then used to subtype and stage follow-up scans. The subtypes and stages at follow-up were used to validate the longitudinal consistency of subtype and stage assignments. We further compared the clinical phenotypes of each subtype to gain insight into the relationship between progressive supranuclear palsy pathology, atrophy patterns, and clinical presentation. The data supported two subtypes, each with a distinct progression of atrophy: a ‘subcortical’ subtype, in which early atrophy was most prominent in the brainstem, ventral diencephalon, superior cerebellar peduncles, and the dentate nucleus, and a ‘cortical’ subtype, in which there was early atrophy in the frontal lobes and the insula alongside brainstem atrophy. There was a strong association between clinical diagnosis and the Subtype and Stage Inference subtype with 82% of progressive supranuclear palsy–subcortical cases and 81% of progressive supranuclear palsy–Richardson cases assigned to the subcortical subtype and 82% of progressive supranuclear palsy–cortical cases assigned to the cortical subtype. The increasing stage was associated with worsening clinical scores, whilst the ‘subcortical’ subtype was associated with worse clinical severity scores compared to the ‘cortical subtype’ (progressive supranuclear palsy rating scale and Unified Parkinson’s Disease Rating Scale). Validation experiments showed that subtype assignment was longitudinally stable (95% of scans were assigned to the same subtype at follow-up) and individual staging was longitudinally consistent with 90% remaining at the same stage or progressing to a later stage at follow-up. In summary, we applied Subtype and Stage Inference to structural MRI data and empirically identified two distinct subtypes of spatiotemporal atrophy in progressive supranuclear palsy. These image-based subtypes were differentially enriched for progressive supranuclear palsy clinical syndromes and showed different clinical characteristics. Being able to accurately subtype and stage progressive supranuclear palsy patients at baseline has important implications for screening patients on entry to clinical trials, as well as tracking disease progression. W.J.S. is supported by a Wellcome Trust Clinical PhD fellowship (220582/Z/20/Z). C.S. is supported by the UK Research and Innovation Medical Research Council (MR/S03546X/1). M.B. is supported by a fellowship award from the Alzheimer’s Society, UK (AS-JF-19a-004-517), and the UK Dementia Research Institute. D.M.C. is supported by the UK Dementia Research Institute, as well as Alzheimer’s Research UK (ARUK-PG2017-1946), and the University College London/University College London Hospitals, National Institute for Health and Care Research Biomedical Research Centre. H.H. is supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01AG038791, U19AG063911). A.L.Y. is supported by a Skills Development Fellowship from the Medical Research Council (MR/T027800/1). N.P.O. is a UK Research and Innovation Future Leaders Fellow (MR/S03546X/1). L.V.V. is supported by the National Institutes of Health (R01AG038791, K23AG073514) and the Alzheimer’s Association. D.C.A. is supported by the Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EP/M020533/1), Medical Research Council (MR/T046422/1), and Wellcome Trust (UNS113739). J.B.R. is supported by the Wellcome Trust (220258), National Institute for Health and Care Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre (BRC-1215-20014), PSP Association, Evelyn Trust, and Medical Research Council (SUAG051 R101400). H.R.M. is supported by Parkinson’s UK, Cure Parkinson’s Trust, PSP Association, CBD Solutions, Drake Foundation, Medical Research Council, and the Michael J Fox Foundation. A.L.B. is supported by the National Institutes of Health (U19AG063911, R01AG038791, R01AG073482, and U24AG057437), the Rainwater Charitable Foundation, the Bluefield Project to Cure FTD, and the Alzheimer’s Association and the Association for Frontotemporal Degeneration. J.D.R. is supported by the Miriam Marks Brain Research UK Senior Fellowship and has received funding from a Medical Research Council Clinician Scientist Fellowship (MR/M008525/1) and the National Institute for Health and Care Research Rare Disease Translational Research Collaboration (BRC149/NS/MH). P.A.W. is supported by a Medical Research Council Skills Development Fellowship (MR/T027770/1). The Dementia Research Centre is supported by Alzheimer’s Research UK, Alzheimer’s Society, Brain Research UK, and The Wolfson Foundation. This work was supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre, the Leonard Wolfson Experimental Neurology Centre (LWENC) Clinical Research Facility, and the UK Dementia Research Institute, which receives its funding from UK DRI Ltd., funded by the UK Medical Research Council, Alzheimer’s Society, and Alzheimer’s Research UK. The PROSPECT study is funded by the PSP Association and CBD Solutions. The 4-Repeat Tauopathy Neuroimaging Initiative (4RTNI) and FTLDNI are funded by the National Institutes of Health Grant (R01 AG038791) and through generous contributions from the Tau Research Consortium. Both are coordinated through the University of California, San Francisco, Memory and Aging Center. 4RTNI data are disseminated by the Laboratory for Neuro Imaging at the University of Southern California.

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed to evaluate the habitual reading distance among non-myopic children and also myopic children with undercorrection and with full correction. METHODS: This was a population-based cross-sectional study with a total of 2363 children aged 6-8 years who were recruited from the Hong Kong Children Eye Study. Cycloplegic autorefraction, subjective refraction, habitual visual acuity, and best corrected visual acuity were measured. The entire reading process (9 min) was recorded using a hidden video camera placed 5 m away from the reading desk. Reading distances were taken at 6, 7, 8, and 9 min after the child began reading and were measured using a customized computer program developed in MATLAB. The main outcome was the association of habitual reading distances with refraction status. Habitual reading distances of children were documented via video camera footage. RESULTS: The habitual reading distances of undercorrected myopic children (23.37 ± 4.31 cm) were the shortest when compared to non-myopic children (24.20 ± 4.73 cm, P = 0.002) and fully corrected myopic children (24.81 ± 5.21 cm, P

When examining the recent evolution of the Constitution, it is argued that the UK has become more ‘legal’ as opposed to ‘political’. The last twenty years has seen a growth in legislation and case law, particularly that of the Supreme Court, regulating aspects of the UK constitution. This chapter investigates this claim. It argues that, whilst we can point to a growth in both legislation and case law, when we look at the case law more closely we can see that the courts balance an array of factors when determining how far to control executive actions. These factors include an analysis of the relative institutional features and constitutional role of the legislature, the executive and the courts. This evidence, in turn, questions the traditional understanding of the separation of powers as a hidden component of the UK constitution. It is not the case that courts merely balance the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty in order to determine how far to control executive actions. Rather, the courts determine how to make this balance through the lens of the separation of powers, evaluating institutional and constitutional features. In doing so, they are upholding necessary checks and balances in the UK constitution.

PURPOSE:To determine the effects on childhood myopia of parental myopia, parental education, children's outdoor time and children's near wok. DESIGN:Population-based cross-sectional study METHODS: A total of 6,155 subjects in 2,055 family trios. Cycloplegic auto-refraction was measured for children and non-cycloplegic auto-refraction for parents. Parental education, children's outdoor time and near work were collected by questionnaires. Children were categorized into ten groups based on parental myopia levels. Associations of the above factors with myopia were evaluated by regression analyses. The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) for myopia were evaluated. RESULTS:Mild parental myopia did not increase childhood myopia's risk, but the risk was 11.22-folds when both parents were highly myopic. Higher parental education (Father: OR=1.08, P=0.046; Mother: OR=1.11, P=0.001) and more reading time of children were risk factors (OR=1.21, P=0.044). Reduced odds of myopia were associated with more time spent on outdoor activities (OR=0.78, P=0.017) and on electronic devices (OR=0.80, P=0.005). Notably, all these factors became insignificant after adjustment, except for parental myopia. Children with more severe parental myopia spent more time on reading, but less on electronic devices. Parental myopic status alone accounted for 11.82% of myopia variation in children. With age and parental myopia, the AUROC for myopia was 0.731. CONCLUSIONS:Among parental and environmental factors, parental myopia confers, in a dose-related manner, the strongest independent effect on childhood myopia. Therefore children with high risk of myopia can be identified for early prevention, based on parental myopia data.

Objective: The aim of this study was to investigate variation in the frequency of resections for colorectal cancer liver metastases across the English NHS. Background: Previous research has shown significant variation in access to liver resection surgery across the English NHS. This study uses more recent data to identify whether inequalities in access to liver resection still persist. Methods: All adults who underwent a major resection for colorectal cancer in an NHS hospital between 2005 and 2012 were identified in the COloRECTal cancer data Repository (CORECT-R). All episodes of care, occurring within 3 years of the initial bowel operation, corresponding to liver resection were identified. Result: During the study period 157,383 patients were identified as undergoing major resection for a colorectal tumor, of whom 7423 (4.7%) underwent ≥1 liver resections. The resection rate increased from 4.1% in 2005, reaching a plateau around 5% by 2012. There was significant variation in the rate of liver resection across hospitals (2.1%–12.2%). Patients with synchronous metastases who have their primary colorectal resection in a hospital with an onsite specialist hepatobiliary team were more likely to receive a liver resection (odds ratio 1.22; 95% confidence interval, 1.10–1.35) than those treated in one without. This effect was absent in resection for metachronous metastases. Conclusions: This study presents the largest reported population-based analysis of liver resection rates in colorectal cancer patients. Significant variation has been observed in patient and hospital characteristics and the likelihood of patients receiving a liver resection, with the data showing that proximity to a liver resection service is as important a factor as deprivation.

This article asks whether populism poses a problem for the UK Constitution. It explains how it is easy to be complacent about the extent to which populism may undermine the UK constitution. Populism may merely be a short-term corrective to tensions inherent to liberal democracies. Moreover, the UK’s characterisation as a predominantly political, evolutionary constitution may make it easier for populist movements to correct flaws without populist movements collapsing into authoritarianism. The article argues, however, that this complacency is misplaced. It fails to take account of the threats populism may pose to democracy, particularly through the homogenisation of the will of the people and the undermining of deliberative and participatory democracy through the over-simplification of politics combined with a focus on emotions over rationality in political debate. Rather than being immune to the dangers of populism, the UK constitution may act as a catalyst for populist movements, particularly given the way in which it focuses on pragmatic as opposed to redemptive understandings of democracy and human rights. Moreover, its flexible, uncodified nature may mean that the UK constitution is less able to prevent populist movements become authoritarian. Having established these difficulties, it then suggests a series of possible reforms. More fundamentally, it argues that it is time to revisit why we regard parliamentary sovereignty as the key principle of the UK constitution, arguing that we need to see this principle as instrumental to maintaining a balanced constitution, as opposed to upholding the sovereignty of the institution of Parliament.