Search

The current study was conducted to characterize the ontogeny of novel object recognition in rats. Initial testing (Experiment 1) was conducted in a square arena and it was observed that 21-day-old animals would often pause in the corners, greatly increasing between-subject variability and performance in this test. Significantly greater object exploration and less variability were obtained using a circular arena. In Experiment 2, we report object exploration in 21, 35, 42, and 90-day-old male and female Sprague-Dawley rats using a circular arena. The results show that measures of locomotor activity, object exploration, and within session habituation of these behaviors were surprisingly similar across all ages. Gender differences in locomotor activity were not observed until 42 days of age. Reliable recognition memory was observed at all ages. It is concluded that the novel object recognition test appears well suited for use in young rats. © 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Dev Psychobiol 55: 373-381, 2013 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Methylphenidate (Ritalin®) is used in the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Surprisingly, little research has been conducted on the effects of methylphenidate during early development. Therefore, the present study was conducted to examine the effects of methylphenidate on object exploration in developing rats. Male and female weanling (21-day-old) and periadolescent (34-day-old) Sprague-Dawley rats were tested after acute or chronic treatment with methylphenidate. In weanling rats, chronic methylphenidate (5.0 mg/kg) increased locomotor activity and disrupted novel object exploration. In periadolescent rats, methylphenidate disrupted exploration of the novel object, but had no effect on locomotor activity at any dose tested. Periadolescent rats appear to be less sensitive to methylphenidate- induced changes in activity compared to weanling animals, whereas methylphenidate disrupted novel object exploration in both ages. Our results suggest that methylphenidate may alter recognition memory and/or reactivity to or preference for novelty. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Current strategies for upper gastrointestinal (UGI) cancer screening primarily target cancer-specific risk, with the strongest focus on esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). However, all UGI cancers are amendable to screening and early detection with an upper endoscopic examination. This study assesses and explores incidence-based mortality (IBM) for cumulative UGI cancers, aiming to identify race-based or sex-based disparities., Methods: We used Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results Research data to analyze patients diagnosed with EAC, esophageal squamous cell carcinoma, cardia gastric cancer, noncardia gastric cancer, or colorectal adenocarcinoma from 2000 to 2019. Age-adjusted IBM was calculated as a rate per 100,000 population and stratified by sex and race/ethnicity. We also compared UGI cancer IBM with that of colorectal cancer, a cancer with established population-wide endoscopic screening guidelines., Results: Cumulative IBM for UGI cancers was 8.40 (95% confidence interval [CI] 8.34-8.46). The highest cancer-specific IBM rates were for EAC (2.26, 95% CI 2.23-2.29), followed by noncardia gastric cancer (2.07, 95% CI 2.04-2.10), cardia gastric cancer (1.60, 95% CI 1.57-1.62), esophageal squamous cell carcinoma (1.21, 95% CI 1.19-1.23), and miscellaneous UGI cancer (1.27, 95% CI 1.13-1.40). UGI cancer IBM was highest among Black men (16.43, 95% CI 15.97-16.89), American Indian/Alaska Native men (15.23, 95% CI 13.75-16.82), and Hispanic men (13.76, 95% CI 13.42-14.11). These rates are significantly greater than among White men (12.81, 95% CI 12.68-12.95)., Discussion: UGI cancers impose a significantly higher mortality burden on non-White population subgroups that are not currently targeted by any systematic screening approach., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Gastroenterology.)

Background: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to examine outcomes of patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia treated with oral progestins or a levonorgestrel-releasing intrauterine device (IUD)., Methods: We conducted a systematic review across 5 databases to examine outcomes of progestational treatment (oral progestins or levonorgestrel-releasing IUD) for patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. The primary outcome was the best complete response rate within 12 months of primary progestational treatment. Sensitivity analyses were performed by removing studies with extreme effect sizes. Secondary outcomes included the pooled pregnancy rate., Results: We identified 21 eligible studies, including 824 premenopausal patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia, for our meta-analysis. Among these, 459 patients received oral progestin, and 365 patients received levonorgestrel-releasing IUD as a primary progestational treatment. The pooled best complete response proportion within 12 months was 82% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 69% to 91%) following oral progestin treatment and 95% (95% CI = 81% to 99%) following levonorgestrel-releasing IUD treatment. After removing outlier studies, the pooled proportion was 86% (95% CI = 75% to 92%) for the oral progestin group and 96% (95% CI = 91% to 99%) for the levonorgestrel-releasing IUD group, with reduced heterogeneity. The pooled pregnancy rate was 50% (95% CI = 35% to 65%) after oral progestin and 35% (95% CI = 23% to 49%) after levonorgestrel-releasing IUD treatment., Conclusions: This meta-analysis provides data on the effectiveness of oral progestins and levonorgestrel-releasing IUD treatment within 12 months of treatment among premenopausal patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia. Although based on small numbers, the rate of pregnancy after treatment is modest. These data may be beneficial for selecting progestational therapies that allow fertility preservation for patients with endometrial intraepithelial neoplasia., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)