The Specific Levels of Functioning Scale (SLOF) has been reported to provide a measure of social function in patients with schizophrenia. The aim of this multi-center study was to determine convergent validity of the Japanese version of SLOF, and if cognitive insight would be associated with social function. Fifty-eight patients with schizophrenia participated in the study. Social function, neurocognition, and daily activity skills were evaluated by the Social Functioning Scale (SFS), Brief Assessment of Cognition in Schizophrenia (BACS) and UCSD Performance-based Skills Assessment-Brief (UPSA-B), respectively. We also assessed cognitive insight with the Beck Cognitive Insight Scale (BCIS). Significant relationships were noted between scores on the SLOF vs. those of the SFS, BACS, UPSA-B, and BCIS. Specifically, the correlation between performance on the UPSA-B and SLOF scores was significantly more robust compared to the correlation between performance on the UPSA-B and scores on the SFS. Similarly, the correlation between scores on the BACS and SLOF tended to be more robust than that between the BACS and SFS. Importantly, while the correlation between scores on the BCIS and SLOF reached significance, it was not so between scores on the BCIS and SFS. The SLOF Japanese version was found to provide a measure of social consequences in patients with schizophrenia. Importantly, this study is the first to indicate the relationship between cognitive insight and social function evaluated by the SLOF. This finding is consistent with the observation that SLOF scores were considerably associated with performances on objective functional measures.
ADHD symptom severity is associated with an increased risk for suicidal behavior in general psychiatric outpatients. As ADHD symptoms are common among adult psychiatric outpatients, detecting and treating ADHD in this population may be important for preventing suicidal behavior.
ObjectiveWe investigated the effects of a single instance of caffeine intake on neurocognitive functions and driving performance in healthy subjects using an established cognitive battery and a driving simulator system.MethodsThis study was conducted in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled manner from February 19, 2016 to August 6, 2016. Caffeine intake was discontinued 3 days prior to the study. Participants were randomly assigned to receive 200-mg doses of caffeine or a placebo. Thirty minutes after administration, cognitive functions were evaluated via the Symbol Digit Coding Test (SDC), the Stroop Test (ST), the Shifting Attention Test (SAT) and the Four Part Continuous Performance Test (FPCPT). After the cognitive function tests were conducted, driving performance was evaluated using a driving simulator. We measured the brake reaction time (BRT) in the Harsh-braking test and the standard deviation of the lateral position (SDLP) in the Road-tracking test.ResultsOf 100 randomized subjects, 50 (50%) of 100 in the caffeine group and 50 (50%) of 100 in the placebo group completed the study. Participants in the caffeine group had more correct responses than participants in the placebo group on the SAT (P = 0.03) and made fewer errors (P = 0.02). Participants in the caffeine group exhibited shorter times in the Harsh-braking test than participants in the placebo group (P = 0.048).ConclusionsA single instance of caffeine intake changed some neurocognitive functions and driving performance in healthy volunteers.Trial registrationUMIN000023576.
The findings in this study show that the noise level of HFNC/Venturi could be reduced by attaching an intake filter. However, the noise level of HFNC/blender and HFNC/turbine decreased in comparison with HFNC/Venturi without an intake filter.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.