Explore the vast range of titles available.

Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence (“professor”) subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence (“soccer hooligans”). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%–3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and −0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the “professor” category and those primed with the “hooligan” category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.

Whole-genome sequencing (WGS) is essential for monitoring the genetic diversity of influenza A virus (IAV) across host species. We optimized a multisegment RT-PCR (mRT-PCR) protocol to enhance amplification of all eight IAV segments using modified RT and PCR conditions. Additionally, we introduced a dual-barcoding approach for the Oxford Nanopore platform, enabling high-throughput multiplexing without compromising sensitivity. The resulting workflow is robust, scalable, and effective for avian, swine, and human IAV samples, even at low viral loads. This approach strengthens genomic surveillance at the human–animal interface, supporting early detection, evolutionary monitoring, and rapid identification of IAV spillover events.

Around one-third of breast cancers diagnosed every year in the UK are in women aged ≥70 years. However, there are currently no decision support interventions (DESIs) for older women who have a choice between primary endocrine therapy and surgery followed by adjuvant endocrine therapy (surgery+endocrine therapy), or who can choose whether or not to have chemotherapy following surgery. There is also little evidence-based guidance specifically on the management of these older patients. A large UK cohort study is currently underway to address this lack of evidence and to develop two DESIs to facilitate shared decision-making with older women about breast cancer treatments. Here, we present the development and initial testing of these two DESIs. An initial prototype DESI was developed for the choice of primary endocrine therapy or surgery+endocrine therapy. Semi-structured interviews with healthy volunteers and patients explored DESI acceptability, usability, and utility. A framework approach was used for analysis. A second DESI for the choice of having chemotherapy or not was subsequently developed based on more focused development and testing. Participants (n=22, aged 75-94 years, 64% healthy volunteers, 36% patients) found the primary endocrine therapy /surgery+endocrine therapy DESI acceptable, and contributed to improved wording and illustrations to address misunderstandings. The chemotherapy DESI (tested with 14 participants, aged 70-87 years, 57% healthy volunteers, 43% patients) was mostly understandable, however, suggestions for rewording sections were made. Most participants considered the DESIs helpful, but highlighted the importance of complementary discussions with clinicians. It was possible to use a template DESI to efficiently create a second prototype for a different treatment option (chemotherapy). Both DESIs were acceptable and considered helpful to support/augment consultations. Development of acceptable additional DESIs for similar target populations using simplified methods may be an efficient way to develop future DESIs. Further research is needed to test the effectiveness of the DESIs.

Background The Bridging the Age Gap in Breast Cancer research programme sought to improve treatment decision-making for older women with breast cancer by developing and testing, in a cluster randomised trial ( n = 1339 patients), two decision support interventions (DESIs). Both DESIs were used in the intervention arm and each comprised an online risk prediction model, brief decision aid and information booklet. One DESI supported the decision to have either primary endocrine therapy (PET) or surgery with adjuvant therapies and the second supported the decision to have adjuvant chemotherapy after surgery or not. Methods Sixteen sites were randomly selected to take part in the process evaluation. Multiple methods of data collection were used. Medical Research Council (MRC) guidelines for the evaluation of complex interventions were used. Results Eighty-two patients, mean age 75.5 (range 70–93), provided data for the process evaluation. Seventy-three interviews were completed with patients. Ten clinicians from six intervention sites took part in telephone interviews. Dose: Ninety-one members of staff in the intervention arm received intervention training. Reach: The online tool was accessed on 324 occasions by 27 clinicians. Reasons for non-use of the online tool were commonly that the patient had already made a decision or that there was no online access in the clinic. Of the 32 women for whom there were data available, fifteen from the intervention arm and six from the usual care arm were offered a choice of treatment. Fidelity: Clinicians used the online tool in different ways, with some using it during the consultation and others checking the online survival estimates before the consultation. Adaptation: There was evidence of adaptation when using the DESIs. A lack of infrastructure, e.g. internet access, was a barrier to the use of the online tool. The brief decision aid was rarely used. Mediators: Shared decision-making: Most patients felt able to contribute to decision-making and expressed high levels of satisfaction with the process. Participants’ responses to intervention: Six patients reported the DESIs to be very useful, one somewhat useful and two moderately useful. Conclusions Clinicians who participated were mainly supportive of the interventions and had attempted some adaptations to make the interventions applicable, but there were practical and engagement barriers that led to sub-optimal adoption in routine practice. Trial registration ISRCTN46099296 . Registered on 11 August 2016—retrospectively registered

The WARM study is a longitudinal cohort study following infants of mothers with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, depression and control from pregnancy to infant 1 year of age. Background Children of parents diagnosed with complex mental health problems including schizophrenia, bipolar disorder and depression, are at increased risk of developing mental health problems compared to the general population. Little is known regarding the early developmental trajectories of infants who are at ultra-high risk and in particular the balance of risk and protective factors expressed in the quality of early caregiver-interaction. Methods/Design We are establishing a cohort of pregnant women with a lifetime diagnosis of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, major depressive disorder and a non-psychiatric control group. Factors in the parents, the infant and the social environment will be evaluated at 1, 4, 16 and 52 weeks in terms of evolution of very early indicators of developmental risk and resilience focusing on three possible environmental transmission mechanisms: stress, maternal caregiver representation, and caregiver-infant interaction. Discussion The study will provide data on very early risk developmental status and associated psychosocial risk factors, which will be important for developing targeted preventive interventions for infants of parents with severe mental disorder. Trial registration NCT02306551, date of registration November 12, 2014.

To empirically address the question of whether and why police officers are more likely to shoot Black than White suspects, psychologists have developed the First-Person Shooting Task (FPST): a laboratory task in which participants must make shooting decisions based on rapid assessments of whether a Black or White target is holding a gun versus a harmless object. Typically, studies employing the FPST have found that participants’ errors and reaction times show a bias toward shooting Black targets over White targets. Evidence for the mechanisms behind this bias is mixed, but several studies point to stereotypic associations between the category “Black” and some indication of threat (e.g. weapon possession). Collectively, this past work is suggestive that racial bias on the FPST is influenced by racial bias in threat perception. I investigated this hypothesis across three studies. Participants rated Black and White faces with regard to how “threatening” the faces appeared, then completed the FPST 3-15 days later. Behavioral and process-level (Drift Diffusion Model) methods were used to determine whether racial bias in a participant’s threat ratings explained racial bias in the FPST. Across two stimulus sets, results indicated that although participants displayed process-level racial bias, this was not explained by biased threat perceptions. I consider implications such as the possibility that biased shooting decisions are produced by information-processing mechanisms rather than affective mechanisms.

IntroductionWhile breast cancer outcomes are improving steadily in younger women due to advances in screening and improved therapies, there has been little change in outcomes among the older age group. It is inevitable that comorbidities/frailty rates are higher, which may increase the risks of some breast cancer treatments such as surgery and chemotherapy, many older women are healthy and may benefit from their use. Adjusting treatment regimens appropriately for age/comorbidity/frailty is variable and largely non-evidence based, specifically with regard to rates of surgery for operable oestrogen receptor-positive disease and rates of chemotherapy for high-risk disease.Methods and analysisThis multicentre, parallel group, pragmatic cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT) (2015-18) reported here is nested within a larger ongoing ‘Age Gap Cohort Study’ (2012-18RP-PG-1209-10071), aims to evaluate the effectiveness of a complex intervention of decision support interventions to assist in the treatment decision making for early breast cancer in older women. The interventions include two patient decision aids (primary endocrine therapy vs surgery/antioestrogen therapy and chemotherapy vs no chemotherapy) and a clinical treatment outcomes algorithm for clinicians.Ethics and disseminationNational and local ethics committee approval was obtained for all UK participating sites. Results from the trial will be submitted for publication in international peer-reviewed scientific journals.IRAS reference115550.Trial registration numberEuropean Union Drug Regulating Authorities Clinical Trials (EudraCT) number 2015-004220-61;Pre-results. Sponsor's Protocol Code Number Sheffield Teaching Hospitals STH17086. ISRCTN 32447*.

In the First-Person Shooter Task (FPST), participants make rapid shoot/don’t-shoot responses to Black and White targets holding guns or harmless objects. It is possible that participants’ responses in this task are influenced by perceptions of targets’ social class, as Blacks are more likely to be low social class, and lower-class individuals are more likely to be pursuing a fast life strategy and therefore more likely to need to resort to physical conflict. Participants across three studies completed a FPST in which Black and White targets were dressed in upper-class outfits or lower-class outfits. Errors and reaction times were recorded and analyzed using the Drift Diffusion Model (DDM). DDM results indicate that participants interpreted the evidence for a shoot decision as stronger for lower-class targets. However, DDM results in two studies also demonstrated a bias against White targets, and differences in error rate and reaction time did not emerge when controlling for random effects by target individual, suggesting that results may have been strongly influenced by characteristics of the targets other than race, social class, and object. Thus while results may demonstrate that perceptions of social class play a role in shooting decisions, further research is needed to confirm this. Implications for the generalizability of shooter research are discussed.

Dijksterhuis and van Knippenberg (1998) reported that participants primed with a category associated with intelligence (“professor”) subsequently performed 13% better on a trivia test than participants primed with a category associated with a lack of intelligence (“soccer hooligans”). In two unpublished replications of this study designed to verify the appropriate testing procedures, Dijksterhuis, van Knippenberg, and Holland observed a smaller difference between conditions (2%–3%) as well as a gender difference: Men showed the effect (9.3% and 7.6%), but women did not (0.3% and −0.3%). The procedure used in those replications served as the basis for this multilab Registered Replication Report. A total of 40 laboratories collected data for this project, and 23 of these laboratories met all inclusion criteria. Here we report the meta-analytic results for those 23 direct replications (total N = 4,493), which tested whether performance on a 30-item general-knowledge trivia task differed between these two priming conditions (results of supplementary analyses of the data from all 40 labs, N = 6,454, are also reported). We observed no overall difference in trivia performance between participants primed with the “professor” category and those primed with the “hooligan” category (0.14%) and no moderation by gender.