the adolescent brain

​interesting article on adolescents in the new york times (see http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/29/opinion/sunday/why-teenagers-act-crazy.html?ref=todayspaper ). will review briefly:
    --adolescent brain functions differently from adult brain
        --the amygdala is highly developed (which governs the fear response)
        --the prefrontal cortex is pretty underdeveloped (which provides reasoning and executive function), and remains so til the early-to-mid 20's
        --the reward center is very developed
--Implications
        --with the highly developed reward center, teens tend to take lots of risks (the chase for rewards)
        --but this is the time for increased issues around fears and anxiety (the amygdala issue) -- often the age when anxiety disorders​ develop. teens have heightened fear responses, and in experiments tend not to extinguish these responses as easily as adults (ie, after repeated exposure). this raises issues, for example, of teens going to war and susceptibility to PTSD, and increased difficulty dealing with it
        --teens seem to be less responsive to cognitive behavioral therapy (given decreased reasoning ability)
        --some concern expressed about the exploding use of stimulants (ritalin, et al).  ??if this is a good thing for people more predisposed to anxiety issues ???predispose them to more PTSD if exposed to trauma (these issues are interesting, but there are NO data)

this goes along with other issues (not in article), such as that functional MRI shows that adolescents process purely analytical problems (eg math) in their limbic system (emotional area), whereas adults process the same problems in their prefrontal cortex.  all of this raises issues about the appropriateness that our society expects adolescents to routinely make extremely important and far-reaching decisions about their lives (and the effect on others) -- eg about their futures (work, college, military service, family) as well as risk-taking (cars, drugs, alcohol, smoking)...

Comments

Post a Comment

if you would like to receive the near-daily emails regularly, please email me at gmodest@uphams.org

Popular posts from this blog

cystatin c: better predictor of bad outcomes than creatinine

  another article found significant discordance between creatinine and cystatin C in assessing renal function,  finding that the latter correlated most strongly with both renal and non-renal adverse clinical outcomes (see   ckd cystatin c better than creat AJKD2023  in  dropbox or doi: 10.1053/ j.ajkd.2023.04.002)   Details: -- 158,601 adults who were in the Stockholm Creatinine Measurements (SCREAM) project and had testing of creatinine and cystatin C on the same day during a healthcare encounter, from 2010-2018     -- >400,000 outpatient tests were done for both creatinine and cystatin C levels -- mean age 62, 48% female -- mean eGFR by creatinine (   eGFR cr ) 80; mean eGFR by cystatin C ( eGFR cys  ) 73 -- mean stage of renal insufficiency: 39%  eGFR cr   90+; 38%  eGFR cr  60-89; 12%  eGFR cr  45-59; 7.1%  eGFR cr  30-44; 3.2%  eGFR cr  15-29, 0.7%  eGFR cr ...
Read more

diabetes DPP-4 inhibitors and the risk of heart failure

the FDA just came out with a safety alert about 2 DPP-4 inhibitors and the increased risk of heart failure (released 04/05/2016)(see  http://www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch/SafetyInformation/SafetyAlertsforHumanMedicalProducts/ucm494252.htm?source=govdelivery&utm_medium=email&utm_source=govdelivery ​ ). details: --saxagliptin and alogliptin were singled out because of 2 clinical trials in diabetic patients with heart disease. in each trial more patients taking these meds were hospitalized for heart failure vs those on placebo     --in the saxagliptin trial: 3.5% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 2.8% on placebo). risk factors included prior heart failure or kidney disease     --in the alogliptin trial: 3.9% were hospitalized for heart failure (vs 3.3% on placebo) --recommendation by the FDA:     -- we should consider stopping these drugs if the patient develops heart failure ...
Read more

UPDATE: ASCVD risk factor critique

I decided to do an extensive update of my prior ASCVD (atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease) risk analysis and critique of risk calculators, with much more information about the “non-traditional” risk factors. I felt that there should be more data/clarification, since I think we are really undertreating/not preventing the most common cause of death by relying on the current ASCVD risk calculators   -- Cardiovascular risk models:      -- many of us rely on the various cardiovascular risk models to determine the appropriate approach to patients, and these are often integrated into the electronic medical records      -- these risk models have several very important limitations:          -- they are typically based on community data, eg from the Framingham study etc. But, in clinical practice, we are dealing with the individual and not the community:          ...
Read more