Gina Hadley

Sleep disruption is recognized as a risk factor for Alzheimer’s disease (AD). Both chronic and acute sleep deprivation (SD) may increase cerebrospina

Medical humanities teaching in UK medical schools has lacked cohesion, having developed opportunistically in different locations. Cohesion is necessary to develop an identifiable community of practice, but within that community there can be multiple readings of what ‘medical humanities’ are and how they may develop. This article details discussions held by medical humanities scholars teaching in UK medical schools at a workshop in January 2025 at the University of Oxford covering five key areas: the role of humanities scholars in medical schools, patients as partners in medical education, core curriculum teaching, intercalated teaching, and assessment. Our discussion highlights opportunities and challenges facing humanities teaching in UK medical schools today and calls for the creation of a community of medical humanities scholars working in UK medical education embracing diversity of opinion and practices. The article is specifically written as a synopsis of a brainstorming symposium.

Given conflicting findings in epidemiologic studies, we determined the relative contributions of different neuropathologies to the excess risk of cognitive decline in diabetes mellitus (DM) through a systematic review of the literature. Included studies compared subjects with and without DM and reported neuropathological outcomes accounting for cognition at death. Data on Alzheimer’s disease (AD) pathology, cerebrovascular disease and non-vascular, non-AD pathology were extracted from each study. Eleven studies (n=6 prospective cohorts, n=5 retrospective post-mortem series, total n=6330) met inclusion criteria. All 11 studies quantified AD changes and 10/11 measured cerebrovascular disease: macroscopic lesions (n=9), microinfarcts (n=8), cerebral amyloid angiopathy (CAA, n=7), lacunes (n=6), white matter disease (n=5), haemorrhages (n=4), microbleeds (n=1), hippocampal microvasculature (n=1). Other pathology was infrequently examined. No study reported increased AD pathology in DM, three studies showed a decrease (n=872) and four (n= 4018) showed no difference, after adjustment for cognition at death. No study reported reduced cerebrovascular pathology in DM. Three studies (n=2345) reported an increase in large infarcts, lacunes and microinfarcts. One study found lower cognitive scores in DM compared to non-DM subjects despite similar cerebrovascular and AD-pathology load suggesting contributions from other neuropathological processes. In conclusion, lack of an association between DM and AD-related neuropathology was consistent across studies, irrespective of methodology. In contrast to AD, DM was associated with increased large and small vessel disease. Data on other pathologies such as non-AD neurodegeneration, and blood-brain-barrier breakdown were lacking. Further studies evaluating relative contributions of different neuropathologies to the excess risk of DM are needed.

In contemporary medical research, randomised controlled trials are seen as the gold standard for establishing treatment effects where it is ethical and practical to conduct them. In palliative care such trials are often impractical, unethical, or extremely difficult, with multiple methodological problems. We review the utility of Cochrane reviews in informing palliative care practice. Published reviews in palliative care registered with the Cochrane Pain, Palliative and Supportive Care Group as of December 2007 were obtained from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, issue 1, 2008. We reviewed the quality and quantity of primary studies available for each review, assessed the quality of the review process, and judged the strength of the evidence presented. There was no prior intention to perform any statistical analyses. 25 published systematic reviews were identified. Numbers of included trials ranged from none to 54. Within each review, included trials were heterogeneous with respect to patients, interventions, and outcomes, and the number of patients contributing to any single analysis was generally much lower than the total included in the review. A variety of tools were used to assess trial quality; seven reviews did not use this information to exclude low quality studies, weight analyses, or perform sensitivity analysis for effect of low quality. Authors indicated that there were frequently major problems with the primary studies, individually or in aggregate. Our judgment was that the reviewing process was generally good in these reviews, and that conclusions were limited by the number, size, quality and validity of the primary studies. We judged the evidence about 23 of the 25 interventions to be weak. Two reviews had stronger evidence, but with limitations due to methodological heterogeneity or definition of outcomes. No review provided strong evidence of no effect. Cochrane reviews in palliative care are well performed, but fail to provide good evidence for clinical practice because the primary studies are few in number, small, clinically heterogeneous, and of poor quality and external validity. They are useful in highlighting the weakness of the evidence base and problems in performing trials in palliative care.