Background Detecting impaired naming capacity is valuable in diagnosing neurocognitive disorders (ND). A. clinical practice- oriented overview of naming tests validated in ND is not available yet. Here, features of naming tests with validated utility in ND which are open access or available for purchase are succinctly presented and compared. Methods Searches were carried out across Pubmed, Medline and Google Scholar. Additional studies were identified by searching reference lists. Only peer-reviewed journal articles were eligible. A narrative- and tabullar synthesis was used to summarize different aspects of the naming assessment instruments used in patients with ND such as stimuli type, administration time, assessment parameters and accessibility. Based on computational word frequency calculations, the tests were compared in terms of the average frequency of their linguistic content. Results Twelve naming tests, relying either on visual or auditory stimuli have been validated in ND. Their content and administration time vary between three and 60 items and one and 20 minutes, respectively. The average frequency of the words of each considered test was two or lower, pointing to low frequency of most items. In all but one test, scoring systems are exclusively based on correctly named items. Seven instruments are open access and four are available in more than one language. Conclusions Gaining insights into naming tests’ characteristics may catalyze the wide incorporation of those with short administration time but high diagnostic accuracy into the diagnostic workup of ND at primary healthcare and of extensive, visual or auditory ones into the diagnostic endeavors of memory clinics, as well as of secondary and tertiary brain healthcare settings.

Stroke is one of the leading causes of disability and death worldwide and places a significant burden on healthcare systems. There are significant racial/ethnic differences in the incidence, subtype, and prognosis of stroke, between people of European and African ancestry, of which only about 50% can be explained by traditional stroke risk facts. However, only a small number of genetic studies include individuals of African descent, leaving many gaps in our understanding of stroke genetics among this population. This review article highlights the need for and significance of including African-ancestry individuals in stroke genetic studies and points to the efforts that have been made towards this direction. Additionally, we discuss the caveats, opportunities, and next steps in African stroke genetics—a field still in its infancy but with great potential for expanding our understanding of stroke biology and for developing new therapeutic strategies.

Background: Intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) is the most devastating adverse outcome for patients on anticoagulants. Clinical risk scores that quantify bleeding risk can guide decision-making in situations when indication or duration for anticoagulation is uncertain. We investigated whether integration of a genetic risk score into an existing risk factor–based CRS could improve risk stratification for anticoagulation-related ICH. Methods: We constructed 153 genetic risk scores from genome-wide association data of 1545 ICH cases and 1481 controls and validated them in 431 ICH cases and 431 matched controls from the population-based UK Biobank. The score that explained the largest variance in ICH risk was selected and tested for prediction of incident ICH in an independent cohort of 5530 anticoagulant users. A CRS for major anticoagulation-related hemorrhage, based on 8/9 components of the HAS-BLED score, was compared with a combined clinical and genetic risk score incorporating an additional point for high genetic risk for ICH. Results: Among anticoagulated individuals, 94 ICH occurred over a mean follow-up of 11.9 years. Compared with the lowest genetic risk score tertile, being in the highest tertile was associated with a two-fold increased risk for incident ICH (hazard ratio, 2.08 [95% CI, 1.22–3.56]). Although the CRS predicted incident ICH with a hazard ratio of 1.24 per 1-point increase (95% CI [1.01–1.53]), adding a point for high genetic ICH risk led to a stronger association (hazard ratio of 1.33 per 1-point increase [95% CI, 1.11–1.59]) with improved risk stratification (C index 0.57 versus 0.53) and maintained calibration (integrated calibration index 0.001 for both). The new clinical and genetic risk score showed 19% improvement in high-risk classification among individuals with ICH and a net reclassification improvement of 0.10. Conclusions: Among anticoagulant users, a prediction score incorporating genomic information is superior to a clinical risk score alone for ICH risk stratification and could serve in clinical decision-making.