No abstract

The idea that deep brain stimulation (DBS) induces changes to personality, identity, agency, authenticity, autonomy and self (PIAAAS) is so deeply entrenched within neuroethics discourses that it has become an unchallenged narrative. In this article, we critically assess evidence about putative effects of DBS on PIAAAS. We conducted a literature review of more than 1535 articles to investigate the prevalence of scientific evidence regarding these potential DBS-induced changes. While we observed an increase in the number of publications in theoretical neuroethics that mention putative DBS-induced changes to patients' postoperative PIAAAS, we found a critical lack of primary empirical studies corroborating these claims. Our findings strongly suggest that the theoretical neuroethics debate on putative effects of DBS relies on very limited empirical evidence and is, instead, reliant on unsubstantiated speculative assumptions probably in lieu of robust evidence. As such, this may reflect the likelihood of a speculative neuroethics bubble that may need to be deflated. Nevertheless, despite the low number of first-hand primary studies and large number of marginal and single case reports, potential postoperative DBS changes experienced by patients remain a critical ethical concern. We recommend further empirical research in order to enhance theoretical neuroethics work in the area. In particular, we call for the development of better instruments capable of capturing potential postoperative variations of PIAAAS.

Acetylcholine (ACh) signaling underlies specific aspects of cognitive functions and behaviors, including attention, learning, memory and motivation. Alterations in ACh signaling are involved in the pathophysiology of multiple neuropsychiatric disorders. In the central nervous system, ACh transmission is mainly guaranteed by dense innervation of select cortical and subcortical regions from disperse groups of cholinergic neurons within the basal forebrain (BF; e.g., diagonal band, medial septal, nucleus basalis) and the pontine-mesencephalic nuclei, respectively. Despite the fundamental role of cholinergic signaling in the CNS and the long standing knowledge of the organization of cholinergic circuitry, remarkably little is known about precisely how ACh release modulates cortical and subcortical neural activity and the behaviors these circuits subserve. Growing interest in cholinergic signaling in the CNS focuses on the mechanism(s) of action by which endogenously released ACh regulates cognitive functions, acting as a neuromodulator and/or as a direct transmitter via nicotinic and muscarinic receptors. The development of optogenetic techniques has provided a valuable toolbox with which we can address these questions, as it allows the selective manipulation of the excitability of cholinergic inputs to the diverse array of cholinergic target fields within cortical and subcortical domains. Here, we review recent papers that use the light-sensitive opsins in the cholinergic system to elucidate the role of ACh in circuits related to attention and emotionally salient behaviors. In particular, we highlight recent optogenetic studies which have tried to disentangle the precise role of ACh in the modulation of cortical-, hippocampal- and striatal-dependent functions.

ObjectiveTo determine progress and gaps in global precision health research, examining whether precision health studies integrate multiple types of information for health promotion or restoration.DesignScoping review.Data sourcesSearches in Medline (OVID), PsycINFO (OVID), Embase, Scopus, Web of Science and grey literature (Google Scholar) were carried out in June 2020.Eligibility criteriaStudies should describe original precision health research; involve human participants, datasets or samples; and collect health-related information. Reviews, editorial articles, conference abstracts or posters, dissertations and articles not published in English were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisThe following data were extracted in independent duplicate: author details, study objectives, technology developed, study design, health conditions addressed, precision health focus, data collected for personalisation, participant characteristics and sentence defining ‘precision health’. Quantitative and qualitative data were summarised narratively in text and presented in tables and graphs.ResultsAfter screening 8053 articles, 225 studies were reviewed. Almost half (105/225, 46.7%) of the studies focused on developing an intervention, primarily digital health promotion tools (80/225, 35.6%). Only 28.9% (65/225) of the studies used at least four types of participant data for tailoring, with personalisation usually based on behavioural (108/225, 48%), sociodemographic (100/225, 44.4%) and/or clinical (98/225, 43.6%) information. Participant median age was 48 years old (IQR 28–61), and the top three health conditions addressed were metabolic disorders (35/225, 15.6%), cardiovascular disease (29/225, 12.9%) and cancer (26/225, 11.6%). Only 68% of the studies (153/225) reported participants’ gender, 38.7% (87/225) provided participants’ race/ethnicity, and 20.4% (46/225) included people from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds. More than 57% of the articles (130/225) have authors from only one discipline.ConclusionsAlthough there is a growing number of precision health studies that test or develop interventions, there is a significant gap in the integration of multiple data types, systematic intervention assessment using randomised controlled trials and reporting of participant gender and ethnicity. Greater interdisciplinary collaboration is needed to gather multiple data types; collectively analyse big and complex data; and provide interventions that restore, maintain and/or promote good health for all, from birth to old age.