Citations

Background Subjective cognitive decline (SCD) is a preclinical condition associated with an increased risk of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease, with no consensus regarding effective therapeutic interventions to date. As the global burden of aging-related neurodegenerative diseases continues to rise, early intervention has become increasingly critical. Cognitive training has been proposed as a promising behavioral intervention; however, few studies have integrated multimodal assessments to elucidate its underlying neurobiological and psychological mechanisms, particularly within the educational system that shapes cognitive reserve and learning strategies across the lifespan. This pilot study aims to estimate effect sizes for future definitive trials, assess the feasibility and acceptability of the intervention and multimodal evaluations, and generate hypotheses regarding the relationship between recitation practice and clinical biomarkers. Methods A total of 60 individuals with subjective cognitive decline will be enrolled in a randomized, assessor-blinded, controlled pilot study. Participants will be randomly assigned to either an intervention group or a non-active control group prior to baseline assessment. The intervention group will undergo a six-month structured recitation training program. Both groups will undergo short-term follow-up after the intervention, and long-term follow-up annually post-intervention. Multimodal assessments will include neuropsychological testing, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), electroencephalography (EEG), blood biomarker profiling, gut microbiota analysis, and fecal metabolomics. Discussion This study protocol outlines a randomized, assessor-blinded, controlled pilot study designed to advance understanding of the feasibility of Chinese Classics recitation training on both physiological and psychological outcomes in individuals with subjective cognitive decline. The findings are expected to provide mechanistic insights into non-pharmacological interventions and to address the current underrepresentation of Asian populations in neuroscience research. Clinical trial registration We registered this randomized controlled trial on ClinicalTrials.gov on March 11, 2026, under the identifier NCT07463391.

Abstract Introduction: Opioid use disorder constitutes a significant health crisis in the United States, contributing to high rates of opioid overdose-related deaths. A major driver of these fatalities is fentanyl, a potent synthetic opioid with both sedative and analgesic properties. These properties that make fentanyl clinically effective also increase its addictive potential. Early in opioid addiction, abnormal increases in extracellular dopamine in the nucleus accumbens (NAc) reinforce excessive drug-seeking behaviors which can lead to fatal respiratory depression. Given this mechanism, we investigated whether high frequency stimulation (HFS), mimicking human deep brain stimulation (DBS) of the ventral tegmental area (VTA) could block NAc dopamine increase following an acute lethal dose of fentanyl. We hypothesized that VTA DBS would mitigate these dopaminergic responses and prevent fentanyl-induced respiratory failure. Methods: Multiple cyclic square wave voltammetry (M-CSWV), was applied via a carbon fiber microelectrode in the NAc of urethane-anesthetized male Sprague-Dawley rats. Dopamine levels were recorded at baseline and following acute fentanyl (30 µg/kg, i.v.). HFS (130 Hz frequency, 200 µsec pulse width, and 0.2 mA amplitude) was administered to the VTA before and during fentanyl exposure. Results: Acute fentanyl administration resulted in a 178.2% increase in NAc dopamine levels from baseline, accompanied by a decline in respiratory rates to critically low levels (45 breaths per minute vs. 102 bpm), eventually resulting in 100% mortality. HFS of the VTA did not significantly alter baseline tonic dopamine levels or prevent fentanyl-induced dopamine increase in the NAc but was able to fully rescue fentanyl-induced respiratory failure.

IMPORTANCEPatients undergoing spine surgery often experience severe pain. The optimal dosage of pregabalin and gabapentin for pain control and safety in these patients has not been well established.OBJECTIVETo evaluate the associations of pain, opioid consumption, and adverse events with different dosages of pregabalin and gabapentin in patients undergoing spine surgery.DATA SOURCESPubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library, and Scopus databases were searched for articles until August 7, 2021.STUDY SELECTIONRandomized clinical trials conducted among patients who received pregabalin or gabapentin while undergoing spine surgery were included.DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESISTwo investigators independently performed data extraction following the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) reporting guideline. The network meta-analysis was conducted from August 2022 to February 2023 using a random-effects model.MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURESThe primary outcome was pain intensity measured using the Visual Analog Scale (VAS), and secondary outcomes included opioid consumption and adverse events.RESULTSTwenty-seven randomized clinical trials with 1861 patients (median age, 45.99 years [range, 20.00-70.00 years]; 759 women [40.8%]) were included in the systematic review and network meta-analysis. Compared with placebo, the VAS pain score was lowest with gabapentin 900 mg per day, followed by gabapentin 1200 mg per day, gabapentin 600 mg per day, gabapentin 300 mg per day, pregabalin 300 mg per day, pregabalin 150 mg per day, and pregabalin 75 mg per day. Additionally, gabapentin 900 mg per day was found to be associated with the lowest opioid consumption among all dosages of gabapentin and pregabalin, with a mean difference of −22.07% (95% CI, −33.22% to −10.92%) for the surface under the cumulative ranking curve compared with placebo. There was no statistically significant difference in adverse events (nausea, vomiting, and dizziness) among all treatments. No substantial inconsistency between direct and indirect evidence was detected for all outcomes.CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCEThese findings suggest that gabapentin 900 mg per day before spine surgery is associated with the lowest VAS pain score among all dosages. In addition, no differences in adverse events were noted among all treatments.

Study Design: Case Series and Technical Note, Objective: UBS has been extensively used in open surgery. However, the use of UBS during UBESS has not been reported in the literature. The aim of this study was to describe a new spinal surgical technique using an ultrasonic bone scalpel (UBS) during unilateral biportal endoscopic spine surgery (UBESS) and to report the preliminary results of this technique. Methods: We enrolled patients diagnosed with lumbar spinal stenosis who underwent single-level UBESS. All patients were followed up for more than 12 months. A unilateral laminotomy was performed after bilateral decompression under endoscopy. We used the UBS system after direct visualization of the target for a bone cut. We evaluated the demographic characteristics, diagnosis, operative time, and estimated blood loss of the patients. Clinical outcomes included the visual analog scale (VAS), the Oswestry Disability Index (ODI), the modified MacNab criteria, and postoperative complications. Results: A total of twenty patients (five males and fifteen females) were enrolled in this study. The mean follow-up period was 13.2 months (range 12–17 months). The VAS score, ODI, and modified MacNab criteria classification improved after the surgery. A minimal mean blood loss of 22.1 mL was noted during the operation. Only one patient experienced neuropraxia, which resolved within 2 weeks. There was no durotomy, iatrogenic pars fracture, or infection. Conclusions: In conclusion, our study represents the first report of the use of UBS during UBESS. Our findings demonstrate that this technique is safe and efficient, with improved clinical outcomes and minimal complications. These preliminary results warrant further investigation through larger clinical studies with longer follow-up periods to confirm the effectiveness of this technique in the treatment of lumbar spinal stenosis.