WashU weekly Neuroscience publications

Variability in the Use of Novel Diagnostic Technology in Children With Suspected Encephalitis and in the Management of Emerging Encephalitides by Pediatric Infectious Disease Providers
(2021) Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society, 10 (4), pp. 529-532. 

Dehority, W.^a , Janowski, A.B.^b , Messacar, K.^c d , Polgreen, P.M.^e , Beekmann, S.E.^e

^a Department of Pediatrics, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque, NM, United States
^b Department of Pediatrics, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States
^c Department of Pediatrics, University of Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States
^d Department of Pediatrics, Children’s Hospital Colorado, Aurora, CO, United States
^e Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, United States

Abstract
We surveyed pediatric infectious disease physicians through the Infectious Disease Society of America’s Emerging Infections Network regarding the diagnosis and management of encephalitis. We identified practice variations, particularly with the use of new diagnostic modalities and management of autoimmune encephalitides. These findings may inform the creation of updated management guidelines. © The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of The Journal of the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Author Keywords
encephalitis;  metagenomic next generation sequencing;  multiplex polymerase chain reaction;  pediatric;  survey

Wireless multilateral devices for optogenetic studies of individual and social behaviors
(2021) Nature Neuroscience, . 

Yang, Y.^a , Wu, M.^b , Vázquez-Guardado, A.^c , Wegener, A.J.^d e , Grajales-Reyes, J.G.^f , Deng, Y.^a g h i , Wang, T.^j , Avila, R.^a c h i , Moreno, J.A.^d e k , Minkowicz, S.^b , Dumrongprechachan, V.^b l , Lee, J.^m , Zhang, S.^{a c h i n} , Legaria, A.A.^f , Ma, Y.^o , Mehta, S.^p , Franklin, D.^c i , Hartman, L.^q , Bai, W.^c i , Han, M.^c , Zhao, H.^c , Lu, W.^c , Yu, Y.^l , Sheng, X.^r , Banks, A.^c m s , Yu, X.^t , Donaldson, Z.R.^u , Gereau, R.W., IV^f , Good, C.H.^c d e , Xie, Z.^v , Huang, Y.^a c h i , Kozorovitskiy, Y.^b l , Rogers, J.A.^{a i m q s w x y z}

^a Department of Mechanical Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States
^b Department of Neurobiology, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States
^c Center for Bio-Integrated Electronics, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States
^d US Army Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, United States
^e US Army Medical Research Institute of Chemical Defense, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, United States
^f Washington University Pain Center and Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United States
^g State Key Laboratory of Mechanical System and Vibration, Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Shanghai, China
^h Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States
ⁱ Department of Materials Science and Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States
^j Department of Physics, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
^k SURVICE Engineering, Belcamp, MD, United States
^l Chemistry of Life Processes Institutes, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States
^m Neurolux Inc, Evanston, IL, United States
ⁿ School of Civil Engineering, Southwest JiaoTong University, Chengdu, China
^o School of Chemical Engineering and Technology, Tianjin University, Tianjin, China
^p CSIR-Central Scientific Instruments Organization, Ministry of Science & Technology, Sector 30-C, Chandigarh, India
^q Department of Biomedical Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States
^r Department of Electronic Engineering, Tsinghua University, Beijing, China
^s Simpson Querrey Institute & Feinberg Medical School, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States
^t Department of Biomedical Engineering, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloong Tong, Hong Kong
^u Psychology and Neuroscience, Molecular Cellular and Developmental Biology, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, CO, United States
^v State Key Laboratory of Structural Analysis for Industrial Equipment, Department of Engineering Mechanics, Dalian University of Technology, Dalian, China
^w Department of Chemistry, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States
^x Department of Neurological Surgery, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States
^y Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States
^z Department of Computer Science, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, United States

Abstract
Advanced technologies for controlled delivery of light to targeted locations in biological tissues are essential to neuroscience research that applies optogenetics in animal models. Fully implantable, miniaturized devices with wireless control and power-harvesting strategies offer an appealing set of attributes in this context, particularly for studies that are incompatible with conventional fiber-optic approaches or battery-powered head stages. Limited programmable control and narrow options in illumination profiles constrain the use of existing devices. The results reported here overcome these drawbacks via two platforms, both with real-time user programmability over multiple independent light sources, in head-mounted and back-mounted designs. Engineering studies of the optoelectronic and thermal properties of these systems define their capabilities and key design considerations. Neuroscience applications demonstrate that induction of interbrain neuronal synchrony in the medial prefrontal cortex shapes social interaction within groups of mice, highlighting the power of real-time subject-specific programmability of the wireless optogenetic platforms introduced here. © 2021, The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature America, Inc.

Funding details
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNINDSR01NS106953, T32GM07200
Materials Research Science and Engineering Center, Harvard UniversityMRSECDMR-1720139
Rita Allen FoundationRAFT32 AG20506, DGE1842165, DP2OD026143
Northwestern UniversityNU
National Institutes of HealthNIHR01NS107539, R01MH117111
5F31NS10347202
Dana Foundation
National Science FoundationNSFECCS1542205
Whitehall Foundation
National Cancer InstituteNCICCSG P30 CA060553, P30 CA060553
National Science FoundationNSFCMMI1635443
National Natural Science Foundation of ChinaNSFC12072057
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesDUT20RC(3)032

Factors Contributing to Lingering Pain after Surgery: The Role of Patient Expectations
(2021) Anesthesiology, pp. 915-924. 

Willingham, M.D.^a , Vila, M.R.^b , Ben Abdallah, A.^a , Avidan, M.S.^a , Haroutounian, S.^a c

^a Department of Anesthesiology, Washington University, School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States
^b Midwest Anesthesia Partners, LLC, Chicago, IL, United States
^c Washington University Pain Center, St. Louis, MO, United States

Abstract
Background: Pain that lingers beyond the early weeks after the acute postoperative period is an important risk factor for chronic postsurgical pain. This study examined the hypothesis that patients’ expectations about their postsurgical pain would be independently associated with lingering postsurgical pain. Methods: The study included 3,628 patients who underwent diverse surgeries between February 2015 and October 2016 in a single U.S. tertiary hospital and participated in the Systematic Assessment and Targeted Improvement of Services Following Yearlong Surgical Outcomes Surveys (SATISFY-SOS) observational study. Preoperatively, patients were asked about their expectations about pain 1 month after surgery. Patients were considered to have lingering postsurgical pain if they endorsed having pain in the area related to their surgeries during a follow-up survey obtained 1 to 3 months postoperatively. The independent associations between preselected perioperative variables and lingering postsurgical pain were evaluated. Results: Of the cohort, 36% (1,308 of 3,628) experienced lingering postsurgical pain. Overall, two thirds (2,414 of 3,628) expected their postsurgical pain to be absent or improved from baseline, and 73% of these had their positive expectations fulfilled. A total of 19% (686 of 3,628) expected new, unabated, or worsened pain, and only 39% (257 of 661) of these had their negative expectations fulfilled. Negative expectations were most common in patients with presurgical pain unrelated to the reason for surgery, undergoing surgeries not typically performed to help alleviate pain. Endorsing negative expectations was independently associated with lingering postsurgical pain (odds ratio, 1.56; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.98; P < 0.001). Additional major factors associated with lingering postsurgical pain included recollection of severe acute postoperative pain (odds ratio, 3.13; 95% CI, 2.58 to 3.78; P < 0.001), undergoing a procedure typically performed to help alleviate pain (odds ratio, 2.18; 95% CI, 1.73 to 2.75; P < 0.001), and preoperative pain related to surgery (odds ratio, 1.91; 95% CI, 1.52 to 2.40; P < 0.001). Conclusions: Lingering postsurgical pain is relatively common after diverse surgeries and is associated with both fixed surgical characteristics and potentially modifiable factors like pain expectations and severe acute postoperative pain. © 2021 Lippincott Williams and Wilkins. All rights reserved.