Operative cancellations adversely affect patient health and impose resource strain on the healthcare system. Here, our objective was to describe neurosurgical cancellations at five Canadian academic institutions.

The Canadian Neurosurgery Research Collaborative performed a retrospective cohort study capturing neurosurgical procedure cancellation data at five Canadian academic centres, during the period between January 1, 2014 and December 31, 2018. Demographics, procedure type, reason for cancellation, admission status and case acuity were collected. Cancellation rates were compared on the basis of demographic data, procedural data and between centres.

Overall, 7,734 cancellations were captured across five sites. Mean age of the aggregate cohort was 57.1 ± 17.2 years. The overall procedure cancellation rate was 18.2%. The five-year neurosurgical operative cancellation rate differed between Centre 1 and 2 (Centre 1: 25.9%; Centre 2: 13.0%, p = 0.008). Female patients less frequently experienced procedural cancellation. Elective, outpatient and spine procedures were more often cancelled. Reasons for cancellation included surgeon-related factors (28.2%), cancellation for a higher acuity case (23.9%), patient condition (17.2%), other factors (17.0%), resource availability (7.0%), operating room running late (6.4%) and anaesthesia-related (0.3%). When clustered, the reason for cancellation was patient-related in 17.2%, staffing-related in 28.5% and operational or resource-related in 54.3% of cases.

Neurosurgical operative cancellations were common and most often related to operational or resource-related factors. Elective, outpatient and spine procedures were more often cancelled. These findings highlight areas for optimizing efficiency and targeted quality improvement initiatives.

The brain can be represented as a network, with nodes as brain regions and edges as region-to-region connections. Nodes with the most connections (hubs) are central to efficient brain function. Current findings on structural differences in Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) identified using network approaches remain inconsistent, potentially due to small sample sizes. It is still uncertain at what level of the connectome hierarchy differences may exist, and whether they are concentrated in hubs, disrupting fundamental brain connectivity.

We utilized two large cohorts, UK Biobank (UKB, N = 5104) and Generation Scotland (GS, N = 725), to investigate MDD case–control differences in brain network properties. Network analysis was done across four hierarchical levels: (1) global, (2) tier (nodes grouped into four tiers based on degree) and rich club (between-hub connections), (3) nodal, and (4) connection.

In UKB, reductions in network efficiency were observed in MDD cases globally (d = −0.076, pFDR = 0.033), across all tiers (d = −0.069 to −0.079, pFDR = 0.020), and in hubs (d = −0.080 to −0.113, pFDR = 0.013–0.035). No differences in rich club organization and region-to-region connections were identified. The effect sizes and direction for these associations were generally consistent in GS, albeit not significant in our lower-N replication sample.

Our results suggest that the brain's fundamental rich club structure is similar in MDD cases and controls, but subtle topological differences exist across the brain. Consistent with recent large-scale neuroimaging findings, our findings offer a connectomic perspective on a similar scale and support the idea that minimal differences exist between MDD cases and controls.

Word finding or “naming” difficulty is a symptom of multiple neurological disorders; therefore, naming assessment is an integral component of neuropsychological evaluation. Prior work has found weaker second-language naming in healthy proficient bilingual youth than monolingual youth, and similar findings have been shown in adults with epilepsy. Considering the potential influences of both early onset epilepsy and bilingualism on brain development, we compared naming in English second language (ESL) and monolingual youth with epilepsy. To assess the impact of bilingualism independent of the known effects of seizure laterality (i.e., poor naming in those with left, dominant-hemisphere seizures), we excluded patients with left language dominance and unilateral seizures. We hypothesized that like other groups, naming would be weaker in ESL than in monolingual youth with epilepsy.

Participants included 84 children with seizures that could not be lateralized clinically (n=36), bilateral seizures (n=20), centrotemporal spikes (n=3), and those with unilateral seizures and atypical language dominance (n=25), ages 6-15 years old: 66 monolingual, English (mean age: 10.87 ± 2.70 years) and 18 ESL (mean age: 10.78 ± 2.88 years). Those with FSIQ < 70 and vocabulary SS < 6 were excluded to ensure English proficiency. Independent samples t-tests, multivariate ANOVA, and chi-square tests compared groups on demographic factors and test performance. All measures (FSIQ, WISC/WASI Vocabulary, letter and category fluency, Children’s Auditory (AN) and Visual Naming (VN) Tests) were administered in English.

Monolingual and ESL groups did not differ in: age, sex, SES, seizure type (i.e., non-lateralized, bilateral, centrotemporal spikes, or atypical language dominance), epilepsy onset age, or number of AEDs. Comparisons also showed no differences in FSIQ, vocabulary, letter fluency, or category fluency (all ps > 0.05). By contrast, auditory and visual naming performances were weaker among ESL patients than monolingual patients: AN accuracy, F(1,81) = 10.89, p = 0.001; AN tip-of-the-tongues (TOTs), F(1,81) = 6.35, p = 0.014; AN Summary Scores (SS), F(1,81) = 6.17, p = 0.015; VN accuracy, F(1,81) = 4.66, p = 0.034; VN SS, F(1,81) = 4.87, p = 0.030, with the exception of VN TOTs, which approached significance, F(1,81) = 3.55, p = 0.063.

Consistent with findings in bilingual healthy youth and ESL adults with epilepsy, naming in ESL youth with epilepsy was weaker than in monolingual children. The groups did not differ on other aspects of language. Thus, unlike other expressive verbal functions, naming is adversely affected in the second language of bilingual people with epilepsy across the age span. These results suggest that poor naming in ESL patients cannot be used to infer a naming deficit, and/or left (dominant) temporal lobe dysfunction.

A commonly used confrontation naming task used in the United States is The Boston Naming Test (BNT). Performance differences has been found in Caucasian and ethnic minorities on the BNT. The Cordoba Naming Test (CNT) is a 30-item confrontation naming task developed in Argentina. Past research has shown acculturation levels can influence cognitive performance. Furthermore, one study evaluated geriatric gender differences on CNT performance in Spanish. Researchers reported that older male participants outperformed female participants on the CNT. To our knowledge, researchers have not evaluated ethnic differences on the CNT using a geriatric sample. The purpose of the present study was to examined CNT performance and acculturation in a Latinx and Caucasian geriatric sample. It was predicted the Caucasian group would outperform the Latinx group on the CNT. Moreover, the Caucasian group would report higher acculturation levels on the Abbreviated Multidimensional Acculturation Scale (AMAS) compared to the Latinx group.

The sample consisted of 9 Latinx and 11 Caucasian participants with a mean age of 66.80 (SD =6.10), with an average of 14.30 (SD = 2.00) years of education. All participants were neurologically and psychologically healthy and completed the CNT and the AMAS in English. Acculturation was measured via the AMAS English subscales (i.e., English Language, United States. Identity, United States, Competency). A series of ANCOVAs, controlling for years of education completed and gender, was used to evaluate CNT performance and acculturation.

The ethnic groups were not well demographically matched (i.e., years of education and gender).We found that the Caucasian group outperformed the Latinx group on CNT performance p = .012, ηp 2 = .34. Furthermore, the Caucasian group reported higher acculturation levels (i.e., English Language, United States, Identity, United States, Competency) compared to the Latinx group p’s < .05, ηps2 = .42-.64.

To our knowledge, this is the first study to evaluate CNT performance between ethnic groups with a geriatric sample. As expected the Caucasian group outperformed the Latinx group on the CNT. Also, as expected the Caucasian group reported higher English acculturation levels compared to the Latinx group. Our findings are consistent with past studies showing ethnic differences on confrontational naming performance (i.e., The Boston Naming Test), favoring Caucasians. A possible explanation for group differences could have been linguistic factors (e.g., speaking multiple languages) in our Latinx group. Therefore, since our Latinx group reported lower levels of English Language, United States identity, and United States competency the Latinx group assimilation towards United States culture might of influence their CNT performance. Future studies with different ethnic groups (e.g., African-Americans) and a larger sample size should examine if ethnic differences continue to cross-validate in a geriatric sample.

Behavioral interventions are a non-pharmacological treatment that shows improvement in the everyday functioning of people with Mild Cognitive Impairment (MCI). Multiple studies have focused on examining factors that can reduce or enhance adherence to behavioral interventions. However, few studies use adherence as a predictor of functional changes. The goal of this study was to analyze the association between adherence, age, and education in factor score changes of participant impairment, participant adjustment, and partner adjustment in a sample of participants with amnestic MCI (aMCI) and their study partners.

We included fifty-two dyads of a person with aMCI and their study partner with intervention data at baseline and 24-week follow-up from the Physical Exercise and Cognitive Engagement Outcomes for Mild Neurocognitive Disorder (PEACEOFMND) study. At baseline, participants were randomized to one of three behavioral interventions: computerized cognitive training (BrainHQ; n=19), yoga (n=15), or wellness education (n=18). Factors were established from a larger clinical sample that used the same measures as PEACEOFMND. The three-factor latent structure was constructed as the following: 1) participant adjustment combined scores of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CES-D), Quality of Life in Alzheimer’s Disease (QoL-AD), and Self-Efficacy for managing MCI scales; 2) partner adjustment included study partner’s scores in CES-D, QoLAD and Caregiving Competence and Mastery Components (CCMC) of the Pearlin scales; 3) participant impairment included participant’s scores in E-Cog memory domain, and study partner’s scores in the Functional Activity Questionnaire (FAQ) and Zarit Burden Interview. We calculated factor changes by obtaining the difference between factor scores at follow-up and baseline. Bayesian correlation analysis was performed to investigate the association between age, education, adherence to the combined behavioral interventions, participant adjustment, participant impairment, and partner adjustment.

The Bayesian correlation results showed moderate evidence (BF10=6.8, Pearson’s r=0.38) supporting a positive correlation between adherence and change in participant adjustment. Additionally, there was moderate evidence (BF10=2.18, Pearson’s r=0.32) supporting a positive correlation between change in participant impairment and participant level of education as well as participant age and change in partner adjustment (BF10=2.8, Pearson’s r=0.33).

Bayesian correlations replicated results from previous analysis using a traditional method, showing that increased adherence to combined behavioral interventions is associated with an increase in participant’s quality of life, self-efficacy, and better mood. Thus, commitment to behavioral intervention completion in aMCI participants is related to overall participant adjustment.

A 30-item confrontation naming test was developed in Argentina for Spanish speakers, The Cordoba Naming Test (CNT). The Boston Naming Test is an established confrontation naming task in the United States. Researchers have used the Boston Naming Test to identify individuals with different clinical pathologies (e.g., Alzheimer’s disease). The current literature on how Spanish speakers across various countries perform on confrontational naming tasks is limited. To our knowledge, one study investigated CNT performance across three Spanish-speaking countries (i.e., Argentina, Mexico, and Guatemala). Investigators found that the Guatemalan group underperformed on the CNT compared to the Argentine and Mexican groups. The purpose of this study was to extend the current literature and investigate CNT performance across five Spanish-speaking countries (i.e., Argentina, Mexico, Guatemala, Colombia, United States). We predicted that the Argentine group would outperform the other Spanish-speaking countries.

The present study sample consisted of 502 neurologically and psychologically healthy participants with a mean age of 29.06 (SD = 13.41) with 14.75 years of education completed (SD = 3.01). Participants were divided into five different groups based on their country of birth and current country residency (i.e., United States, Mexico, Guatemala, Argentina, & Colombia). All participants consented to voluntary participation and completed the CNT and a comprehensive background questionnaire in Spanish. The CNT consisted of 30 black and white line drawings, ranging from easy to hard in difficulty. An ANCOVA, controlling for gender, education, and age, was used to evaluate CNT performance between the five Spanish-speaking country groups. Meanwhile, a Bonferroni post-hoc test was utilized to evaluate the significant differences between Spanish-speaking groups. We used a threshold of p < .05 for statistical significance.

Results revealed significant group differences between the five Spanish speaking groups on the CNT, p = .000, np2 = .48. Bonferroni post-hoc test revealed that the United States group significantly underperformed on the CNT compared to all the Spanish-speaking groups. Next, we found the Guatemalan group underperformed on the CNT compared to the Argentinian, Mexican, and Colombian groups. Additionally, we found the Argentinian group outperformed the Mexican, Guatemalan, and United States groups on the CNT. No significant differences were found between the Argentinian group and Colombian group or the Mexican group and Colombian group on the CNT.

As predicted, the Argentinian group outperformed all the Spanish-speaking groups on the CNT except the Colombian group. Additionally, we found that the United States group underperformed on the CNT compared to all the Spanish-speaking groups. A possible explanation is that Spanish is not the official language in the United States compared to the rest of the Spanish-speaking groups. Meanwhile, a possible reason why the Argentinian and Colombian groups demonstrated better CNT performances might have been that it was less culturally sensitive than the United States, Mexican, and Guatemalan groups. Further analysis is needed with bigger sample sizes across other Spanish-speaking countries (e.g., Costa Rica, Chile) to evaluate what variables, if any, are influencing CNT performance.