Miscellaneous amused views on topics in the domains of neuropsychiatric epidemiology, defined broadly to encompass the entire envirome and genome, including infective agents; alcohol, tobacco, and other drugs; traumatic events; you name it. Comments welcome. Will be moderated by a volunteer among one of our MSU program's chief fellows or alum.
Friday, December 29, 2017
Thursday, December 28, 2017
Soviet Russia and Drugs
Wednesday, December 27, 2017
Tuesday, December 26, 2017
CSF taps and diagnosis of AD and MCI
"Grazing Material"
Dementia
Plasma and Cerebrospinal Fluid Amyloid Beta for the Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease Dementia and Other Dementias in People With Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI)
C Ritchie et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (6), CD008782. 2014 Jun 10.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/24913723/
CSF Tau and the CSF Tau/ABeta Ratio for the Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease Dementia and Other Dementias in People With Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI)
C Ritchie et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 3, CD010803. 2017 Mar 22.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/28328043/
(11)c-Pib-Pet for the Early Diagnosis of Alzheimer's Disease Dementia and Other Dementias in People With Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI)
S Zhang et al. Cochrane Database Syst Rev (7), CD010386. 2014 Jul 23.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/25052054/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/25052054/
Monday, December 25, 2017
Thursday, December 21, 2017
Wednesday, December 13, 2017
Wednesday, December 6, 2017
Overview of TMS and other non-pharmacological interventions for drug dependence
Tuesday, December 5, 2017
Cognitive games mentioned by Dr. Tom Insel at ACNP
Saturday, December 2, 2017
Tuesday, November 28, 2017
The Gin Craze Podcast
Everyone should know about the 'Gin Craze' that occurred in Great Britain once distilling came to rival and in some instances to displace fermentation of wine and brewing of beer/ale.
Example of a tech-shift akin to what happened when crack-cocaine in unit dose form was devised during the US cocaine powder insufflation epidemic of the 1975-1985 era, with crack displacing a much more hazardous 'freebase cocaine' self-administration process that involved serious inflammation. (See tragic Richard Pryor story for an example of a freebase casualty.)
Which data did Twenge use? Did she stratify by year of birth?
Monday, November 27, 2017
Friday, November 24, 2017
Friday, November 17, 2017
Drug cocktails
Thursday, November 16, 2017
Forsyth: History of Drunkenness
Monday, November 13, 2017
Friday, November 10, 2017
Mad in America podcast
Thursday, November 9, 2017
Mendelian Randomization?
Saturday, November 4, 2017
Estimating its effect
Tuesday, October 31, 2017
Interesting take on Oxycontin story
Friday, October 27, 2017
Thursday, October 26, 2017
Tuesday, October 24, 2017
Epidemiology for clinical neurologists
Monday, October 23, 2017
Sunday, October 22, 2017
Wednesday, October 11, 2017
Healy and R code data visualization
Sunday, October 8, 2017
Why isn’t treatment for depression leading to lower prevalence?
Thursday, October 5, 2017
Stigma: inherently disparaging?
Tuesday, October 3, 2017
Emergence of drug development after Dalton's atomic theory
The story is that Spanish colonists discovered that the bark from the Quinquina tree in Peru could be used to treat Malaria. This likely happened in the early 1600’s. In Europe this ground bitter bark became known as Fever Tree bark or Jesuit’s powder. It is believed that the discovery and usage of the bark was one of the reasons why European countries managed to colonize the tropics.
The most active ingredient in the bark is quinine. In 1817 a couple of French scientists discovered a way to extract the quinine from the bark and from then on pure quinine powder became available to prevent the Malaria. It was this powder that was prescribed to the British officers which they created the first Tonic water with.
In the beginning most bark for quinine came from its original country of Peru. But seeds was smuggled out in 1860 and was sold to the Dutch government. They set up big plantations in Java, Indonesia where they could have full control of the market. During World War II the Japanese occupied Java which lead to a shortage in quinine. To prevent this from being a future problem trees was planted in Africa and synthetic quinine was developed.
Both the planting in Africa and the creation of synthetic quinine turned out successful and now there are quinine exported from Africa as well as synthetic quinine."
Saturday, September 30, 2017
APC models
Monday, September 18, 2017
Tuesday, September 12, 2017
Saturday, September 9, 2017
The Emergence of the Modern Scientific Method
Wednesday, September 6, 2017
Tuesday, September 5, 2017
Thursday, August 31, 2017
Gender Issues and Drug Use
Wednesday, August 30, 2017
Opioids harms overview document - useful citation
Tuesday, August 29, 2017
Monday, August 28, 2017
AUGUST 25, 2017 This American War on Drugs
This American War on Drugs
Saturday, August 26, 2017
On Marijuana and its many names
Wednesday, August 23, 2017
Time to discuss what epidemic means?
Heroin in Habitina, 1910
Monday, August 21, 2017
MDHHS and LARA in social media: opioids
State level opioid work
-
Most states recognize prescription drug overdoses as a growing issue, although some states only recently became aware of its magnitude locally. Most states became aware of the problem through mortality data.
States rely heavily on measures such as interagency task forces and prescription monitoring programs to address the problem. Less common are educational and regulatory initiatives.
States cited lack of awareness of the problem, insufficient data, privacy and confidentiality concerns, and lack of state-based injury prevention capacity as barriers to implementing a response.
States cited the need to increase the visibility of the prescription overdose problem.
States need evidence-based guidelines for prescribers and effective policy and programmatic tools. Although many states have implemented responses, their effectiveness is unclear.
Sunday, August 20, 2017
Saturday, August 19, 2017
Subjectively Felt Tolerance and the Steppingstone/Gateway Process
Thursday, August 17, 2017
Wednesday, August 2, 2017
Wednesday, July 26, 2017
Saturday, July 22, 2017
Racism, Labor Conflict, and Drugs
If nothing else, listen to Carl Hart segment at 17:20 - 20:00.
Also see book by Helmer & Vietorisz, 1974, an early introduction to racism and labor conflict described in the podcast.
"The Facts about Drug Abuse"
Friday, July 14, 2017
Cross-sectional Schmosh-sectional. What is the issue?
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
Bittersweet symphony
What Cookies and Meth Have in Common?
Interesting question. The implicated assumption here is that cookies and meth do have something in common. Do they? Is the engagement of the brain reward system after intake what they have in common, or the other way around-- stress-induced changes to the reward system alters the risk for both eating and drug problems? Food is for survival. Meth is not. Meth interacts with dopamine transporters directly; cookies don't. (Cookie Monster's sad face)
Is stress and high accessibility the deadly combination for obesity and drug problems? Don't we need a 3*3 factorial design to test it out? I'd bet my money on accessibility.
Thoughts are welcome!
Thursday, July 6, 2017
Keith Connors, Ph.D., R.I.P., July 5, 2017
Monday, July 3, 2017
Thursday, June 29, 2017
William H. McGlothlin
Monday, June 26, 2017
Craig Reinarmand, Intoxication, and US Culture
In this post, I will add some notes about his perspectives, and invite you to comment.
Reinarman on intoxication and US culture
Later on, if Hui or I have time, we'll add some additional interviews and readings.
Tom Ungerleider , RIP
I was lucky to interview Tom in the early 1970s as part of a DEA research contract that helped me understand the US drug policy structure. (At the time I drafted that research contract proposal, I was a 'wet behind the ears' Instructor at the University of Minnesota College of Pharmacy, and it helped sustain me through both my master of science studies and my PhD studies. I came away with a serious pessimism about learning anything definitive from analyses of already-gathered data, and a commitment to gather my own data. The search for definitive evidence and understanding must include analysis of already gathered data, but do not count on analyses of already gathered data to win you anything more than a seat testifying before the US Congress as the highest honor. Hard to speak definitively on any subject if all you do is analyze hard-won data that comes from protocols you did not design to 'sing' to the research question you seek to answer.)
Some notes on Tom and his contributions to our field:
Life history information
Bias and cannabis research
Drugs and adolescents
PubMed trace of his work over the years
On some occasions, we learn from a short interaction with an important field leader.
My interaction with Professor Ungerleider was a short one.
I called him on the telephone, set up the interview appointment, and flew out to meet him, returning with notes and valuable insights about how the DEA and FDA do and do not work together.
But the most profound insight involves compassion coupled with science.
Compassion for people using drugs and the use of science to harness the energy of that compassion in the direction of 'betterment'.
Thanks to Tom Ungerleider for what he taught me on that important front.
Tales on the Cannabis Road
Sunday, June 11, 2017
Saturday, June 10, 2017
Is this the kind of society you wish for your children or grandchildren?
Neglected classics
Age of Anxiety now?
Sunday, June 4, 2017
Reading, Writing, and Reefer
Heroin by Velvet Underground
Friday, June 2, 2017
Background reading: children and adolescent mental health, IACAPAP
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Women in science (biodiversity)
Sunday, May 28, 2017
George Comstock on Wade Hampton Frost
Friday, May 26, 2017
Mary Gover: I have not found a biography.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
LT and LC biases in drug dependence epidemiology
Tuesday, May 16, 2017
"Solutions Epidemiology"
Sunday, May 7, 2017
Importing Econometric Models into Psychiatric Epidemiology, A Start
Monday, May 1, 2017
Thursday, April 27, 2017
Old Age Psychiatry: The Baby Boom Generation and What to Expect: Performance-Enhancing Drugs
Re-Thinking Epidemiology for the Mid-21st Century
Anyone who knows me appreciates that I was destined to be no more than a limited 'futurist' as compared to the best futurists. I lay the blame on the Catholic Church, becoming an altar boy, studying Latin for more years than I wish to count (including a year of self-study), and gaining too much respect for early origins and roots. Think about me as a conservative radical, conserving the roots. I might be too 'conservative' to be a good futurist.
At the same time, I also am known as an iconoclast, because I do not hesitate to challenge bogus concepts when they creep into our field of epidemiology, among which I can specify 'risk factor' and 'reverse causality' as special within-field jargon terms that have almost no communication value when we, as epidemiologists, try to describe our evidence to audiences beyond the local 'tribe'. (Worse yet, there are non-tribe members who actually think they know what we mean when we use these jargon-terms, as has occurred when my non-baseball friends have thought I'm talking about mental health when I use the term 'screwball' when describing a baseball pitcher.)
With that background in mind, you can imagine my response when I was giving an end-of-semester talk to my research trainees and students about some challenges that epidemiologists are going to face during the next few decades. I thought back to two issues raised when I was early in my studies of epidemiology back in the late 1970s: (1) an idea that David Mechanic and Bill Eaton mentioned about epidemiology having run out of ideas and theories, and (2) an idea that Bruce Dohrenwend offered about epidemiology being little more than a toolkit or collection of methodological approaches.
For my students, I framed my response to a hypothetical question about the challenges they might face in relation to these two ideas, and I offered this statement: "The most serious challenge you will face in your career is running out of substantive ideas and theories that deserve testing."
For the past day, I have been thinking about what I told them, and I realized that there might be an empirical indication of the degree to which epidemiology, as a discipline, has started to run out of ideas and theories, and has entered a terminal (?) stage of being a methods-oriented field of study as might be distinguished from a science, akin to the way we'd differentiate 'operations research' as a field of study without thinking about it as a 'science' in the generally accepted sense of the term.
My realization of an empirical approach required a reflection on (a) an early expression of Wade Hampton Frost's idea that epidemiology has to do with infective agents and infectious diseases, and he was uncertain about whether it made sense to think about epidemiology as applied to other conditions that did not originate with an exposure to an infective agent, (b) Mort Levin's assertion in a Milbank Memorial Fund session that Ernie Gruenberg had organized, which amounted to this statement: "There can be an epidemiology, and there can be a set of psychiatric disorders, but I'm not sure there needs to be an epidemiology of psychiatric disorders," and (c) a general principle I first learned from my PhD advisor Len Schuman at University of Minnesota, which also later was stressed by my local colleague and friend Nigel Paneth, along the lines of the advantages gained by restricting the prefix adjective for epidemiology to the domain of individual disease entities or disease classification names, as in 'cholera epidemiology' and 'infectious disease epidemiology,' as opposed to alternatives based on prefix adjectives that shifted attention from the epidemiological response under study in the direction of the causal explanations under study (e.g., 'genetic epidemiology').
When I first appreciated this point as it was being made by Len Schuman in my early years after starting graduate studies in epidemiology, I had not read Wade Hampton Frost nor had I met Mort Levin. I was out in Minnesota, ignorant of Mechanic's medical sociology program at University of Wisconsin, and completely ignorant about Bruce and Barbara Dohrenwend's social psychological research program at Columbia. Nonetheless, it was not long until I was reading the Lilienfeld-Gifford 'Chronic Diseases and Public Health' book assigned by Schuman, and I recognized a clear distinction being made between 'Infectious Disease Epidemiology' and 'Chronic Disease Epidemiology' (hereinafter abbreviated as ID and CD).
[At this point, I stopped for refreshment and I pick up the thread down below.]
Now that I have drawn attention to this separation of 'ID epidemiology' from 'chronic disease' epidemiology, I can offer a thought experiment that some enterprising young epidemiologist might try to pursue. (The most valuable thought experiments are those that can be investigated empirically once the experiment has been specified.)
The empirical work involves the study of time trends in appearance of adjectives used to modify the term 'epidemiology' as can be seen in traces such as Web of Science or Google Search or JSTOR or other bibliographic search tools that have emerged as a consequence of internet advances.
An initial interesting time trend will depict the relative frequency of 'infectious disease epidemiology' and 'chronic disease epidemiology' as these terms appeared in the published literature, year by year, over time. Here, the expectation would be an increasing frequency of both terms, but in addition, even with de-trending, the ID/CD ratio might be expected to decline, at least until the mid-1980s, given (1) increasing prominence of work in CD epidemiology until (2) emergence of HIV/AIDS research as priorities for NIH before 1990. (I have not studied these trends so these expectations are based solely on my 'seat of the pants' reckoning, and I might well be wrong.)
A savvy approach will put into play de-trending research approaches that compensate for generally increasing frequencies of 'epidemiology' as a search term, based on knowledge that NIH and other funding sources increased their investments in epidemiology across these years. A more savvy approach will take other interesting issues into account, such as might be illuminated by studying citation counts as opposed to what can be learned via 'topic' or 'title' restricted searches over these years.
But I leave these issues up to others in order to focus on the possibility that epidemiology's de-celerating rate of innovative ideas might be reflected by studying (1) the relative frequency of 'disease entity' adjectives positioned as prefix terms before 'epidemiology' appears as a noun, and (2) the corresponding relative frequency of 'non-disease-entity' adjectives positioned as prefix terms. Here, by 'disease entity' adjectives, I'll use as examples 'cancer epidemiology' and 'dementia epidemiology.' For 'non-disease-entity' examples, I'll use examples 'social epidemiology' and 'genetic epidemiology' or 'nutrtional epidemiology' or 'life-course epidemiology.'
It is fair to ask why the relative frequency of these prefix adjectives might convey something important about the content of epidemiological research and the inherent generativity of epidemiology as a source of new ideas and theories. I have little more than a simple answer of the following form, expressed in relation to 'Types' of epidemiology:
(Type 1) When the prefix adjective is focused on the response variable, such as a cancer or a dementia, then the domain of potential explanations is expanded almost infinitely to cover whatever might be accounting for variation in the incidence rates and prevalence proportions for that response. The epidemiologist is faced with the challenge of drawing from multiple disciplines in an effort to understand what might account for the population-level variations in the epidemiological parameters. Let's think of the specification of the response variable as one dimension of epidemiology.
(Type 2) When the prefix adjective is focused on a domain of explanation (e.g., 'social' or 'nutritional' or 'genetic'), there is a greater constraint on the range of sources of variation. The epidemiologist is faced with a more circumscribed challenge, which is to ask whether and under what circumstances that domain of explanation might be more or less important in attempts to account for population-level variations in the epidemiological parameters. Let's think of the specification of the explanatory domain as a second dimension of epidemiology, when 'second' denotes a time sequence rather than my own pre-judgement (prejudice) about the ordinal ranking of importance or public health significance.
(Type 3) When the prefix adjective is focused on a domain of process (e.g., life-course'), there is a third dimension that can be considered quite separately from the first two dimensions, and the third dimension has a correlation with time. This dimension might reflect age (considered subgroup by subgroup, as in a cohort-sequential study), or aging (considered as a progression from one birthday to the next), or as developmental (as in the relatively fuzzy sets that we use to distinguish developmental stages along the lines of (a) pre-term, full-term, etc., with respect to measured gestational age of a newborn, or (b) 'pre-pubertal,' 'pubertal,' etc., along the lines of the Tanner stages, or (c) pre-senile versus senile, as in the differentiation of age of onset of dementia syndromes based on when the syndrome was detected, earlier for those with trisomy-21, at mid-life for those with certain familial histories of early-onset, or later for those formerly known as 'sporadic' due to the absence of the family history of mid-life onset of the dementia syndrome. This is a third dimension, separable from the first two dimensions.
It is my speculation that an increasing frequency of prefix adjectives of type (2) and (3), relative to type (1), over time, can serve as an indication of the degree to which epidemiology, per se, has stopped generating its new ideas and theories, and instead is turning in the direction of other disciplines to fill a gap of imagination or generativity that otherwise would not require turning toward these other disciplines.
I have no idea whether this speculation has merit. I offer it as a suggestion for epidemiologists and historians of science who might wish to seek quantitive evidence about the degree to which a discipline has 'run out of its own ideas and theories' versus the alternative of borrowing from other disciplines.
I look forward to comments and to any empirical evidence on these matters.