Explore the vast range of titles available.

Abstract Background Immunogenicity studies suggest that recombinant influenza vaccine (RIV) may provide better protection against influenza than standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccines (SD IIV). This randomized trial evaluated the relative vaccine effectiveness (VE) and immunogenicity of RIV versus SD IIV in frontline workers and students aged 18–64 years. Methods Participants were randomized to receive RIV or SD IIV and followed for reverse-transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR)–confirmed influenza during the 2022–2023 influenza season. Sera were collected from a subset of participants before and at 1 and 6 months postvaccination and tested by hemagglutination inhibition for A/H1N1, A/H3N2, B/Yamagata, and B/Victoria and against cell-grown vaccine reference viruses for A/H1N1 and A/H3N2. Results Overall, 3988 participants were enrolled and vaccinated (25% of the trial sample size goal); RT-PCR–confirmed influenza occurred in 20 of 1963 RIV recipients and 28 of 1964 SD IIV recipients. Relative VE was 29% (95% confidence interval [CI], −26% to 60%). In the immunogenicity substudy (n = 118), the geometric mean titer ratio (GMTR) comparing RIV to SD IIV at 1 month was 2.3 (95% CI, 1.4–3.7) for cell-grown A/H1N1, 2.1 (95% CI, 1.3–3.4) for cell-grown A/H3N2, 1.1 (95% CI, .7–1.6) for B/Victoria, and 1.4 (95% CI, .9–2.0) for B/Yamagata. At 6 months, GMTRs were >1 against A/H1N1, A/H3N2, and B/Yamagata. Conclusions Relative VE of RIV compared to SD IIV did not reach statistical significance, but RIV elicited more robust humoral immune responses to 2 of 4 vaccine viruses at 1 month and 3 of 4 viruses at 6 months after vaccination, suggesting possible improved and sustained immune protection from RIV. Clinical Trials Registration. NCT05514002.

What is already known on this topic? In June 2022, COVID-19 vaccines were authorized for use in children aged 6 months–5 years. Intent to vaccinate and vaccination rates in children have been low. What is added by this report? During July 2021–May 2022, in a longitudinal cohort of 393 children aged <5 years in four states, parental intent to vaccinate children against COVID-19 and perception of COVID-19 vaccine safety and effectiveness declined over a 3-month period, but intent to vaccinate and perceptions of vaccine safety returned to baseline after 6 months. What are the implications for public health practice? Identifying and addressing barriers to COVID-19 vaccination in children aged <5 years and educating parents about COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness and safety in young children are critical to increasing pediatric COVID-19 vaccination coverage.

ARID1A, a subunit of the SWI/SNF chromatin remodeling complex, has emerged as a pivotal tumor suppressor altered in a broad range of human malignancies. Its frequent inactivation across diverse cancer types has revealed pleiotropic roles that intersect multiple Hallmarks of Cancer. In this review, we integrate current knowledge on how ARID1A loss influences cellular processes including proliferative signaling, resistance to cell death, genomic instability, metabolic reprogramming, immune evasion, and more. We discuss the context-specific consequences of ARID1A deficiency, its cooperation with other oncogenic events, and its implications for therapeutic vulnerability—particularly in the realm of synthetic lethality and immune modulation. By mapping ARID1A’s functional impact onto the established hallmarks framework, we highlight its centrality in cancer biology and underscore opportunities for biomarker-driven strategies and targeted interventions. Understanding ARID1A’s multifaceted roles offers a compelling lens through which to explore chromatin dysregulation in cancer and guide translational advances.

Abstract Jury decisions are among the most consequential social decisions in which bias plays a notable role. While courts take measures to reduce the influence of non-evidentiary factors, jurors may still incorporate biases into their decisions. One common bias, crime-type bias, is the extent to which the perceived strength of a prosecutor’s case depends on the severity of the crime. Moral judgment, affect and social cognition have been proposed as core processes underlying this and other biases. Behavioral evidence alone has been insufficient to distinguish these explanations. To identify the mechanism underlying crime-type bias, we collected functional magnetic resonance imaging patterns of brain activation from mock jurors reading criminal scenarios. Brain patterns from crime-type bias were most similar to those associated with social cognition (mentalizing and racial bias) but not affect or moral judgment. Our results support a central role for social cognition in juror decisions and suggest that crime-type bias and cultural bias may arise from similar mechanisms.

Few studies have explored neural mechanisms of reward learning in ASD despite evidence of behavioral impairments of predictive abilities in ASD. To investigate the neural correlates of reward prediction errors in ASD, 16 adults with ASD and 14 typically developing controls performed a prediction error task during fMRI scanning. Results revealed greater activation in the ASD group in the left paracingulate gyrus during signed prediction errors and the left insula and right frontal pole during thresholded unsigned prediction errors. Findings support atypical neural processing of reward prediction errors in ASD in frontostriatal regions critical for prediction coding and reward learning. Results provide a neural basis for impairments in reward learning that may contribute to traits common in ASD (e.g., intolerance of unpredictability).

Efforts to explain complex human decisions have focused on competing theories emphasizing utility and narrative mechanisms. These are difficult to distinguish using behavior alone. Both narrative and utility theories have been proposed to explain juror decisions, which are among the most consequential complex decisions made in a modern society. Here, we asked jury-eligible male and female subjects to rate the strength of a series of criminal cases while recording the resulting patterns of brain activation. We compared patterns of brain activation associated with evidence accumulation to patterns of brain activation derived from a large neuroimaging database to look for signatures of the cognitive processes associated with different models of juror decision making. Evidence accumulation correlated with multiple narrative processes, including reading and recall. Of the cognitive processes traditionally viewed as components of utility, activation patterns associated with uncertainty, but not value, were more active with stronger evidence. Independent of utility and narrative, activations linked to reasoning and relational logic also correlated with increasing evidence. Hierarchical modeling of cognitive processes associated with evidence accumulation supported a more prominent role for narrative in weighing evidence in complex decisions. However, utility processes were also associated with evidence accumulation. These complementary findings support an emerging view that integrates utility and narrative processes in complex decisions. The last decade has seen a sharply increased interest in narrative as a central cognitive process in human decision making and as an important factor in the evolution of human societies. However, the roles of narrative versus utility models of decision making remain hotly debated. While available models frequently produce similar behavioral predictions, they rely on different cognitive processes and so their roles can be separated using the right neural tests. Here, we use brain imaging during mock juror decisions to show that cognitive processes associated with narrative, and to a lesser extent utility, were engaged while subjects evaluated evidence. These results are consistent with interactions between narrative and utility processes during complex decision making.

Abstract Efforts to explain complex human decisions have focused on competing models emphasizing utility, narrative, and social-affective mechanisms. These are difficult to distinguish using behavior alone. Jury decisions are among the most consequential complex decisions made in a modern society, and both narrative and utility models have been proposed to explain juror decisions. Here, we use patterns of brain activation derived from large neuroimaging databases to look for signatures of the cognitive processes associated with models of juror decision making. We asked jury-eligible subjects to rate the strength of a series of criminal cases while recording the resulting patterns of brain activation. When subjects considered evidence, cognitive processes associated with narrative models better explained the patterns of brain activation than cognitive processes associated with utility. In contrast, a biasing effect of crime type on perceived strength of the case was best explained by brain patterns associated with social cognition. Our results support a central role for narrative in integrating evidence and biases in complex decisions. Competing Interest Statement The authors have declared no competing interest. Footnotes * Data availability: Unthresholded fMRI statistical maps can be viewed/downloaded from Neurovault: https://neurovault.org/collections/UADNVKNI/. Code and fMRI analysis pre-registration for hypothesis grouping can be viewed and downloaded from OSF: https://osf.io/rk92x/ and Github: https://github.com/jcastrel/juror_fmri * Conflicts of interest: The authors have no conflicts of interest to report. * 1. Revised Figure 1 to include a graphic of evidence accumulation. Correlation and PCA plots are now in Supplementary Figure 3. 2. Revised statistical threshold for determining model significance. We previously set a null model R-squared threshold using 3 random topics (permuted 5,000 times). We chose 3 initially because it was the median number of topics contained in the lowest level of our model structure (e.g. Affect or Value). However, this threshold may be too liberal for higher-level models with more topics (e.g. Narrative or Utility). We now compare each model to a null model that contains the same number of topics. Supplementary Tables 4 and 5 list all the thresholds used for each model size. 3. Since the statistical threshold depends on the model, we now indicate whether a model is significant using an asterisk symbol in the dendrogram in Figure 3. Previously, this was a dotted red line. 4. As a result of this statistical threshold change, evidence accumulation is not better explained by the utility model than 95 percent of 5,000 random null models. 5. Performed post-hoc fMRI region-of-interest analyses with 2 different goals: (5a.) Rule out the possibility that the reading model explains evidence accumulation solely because of low-level text features in the evidence presented. We show that trial-level evidence text word count and complexity (reading grade level) are not related to fMRI activation during evidence presentation (Supplementary Figure 8). (5b.) Explore whether features of the scenarios can account for a role for social cognition in crime-type bias. We show that trial-level differences in scenario classification according to the criminal code (felony versus misdemeanor) are not related to fMRI activation during scenario presentation (Supplementary Figure 9). However, crime victimhood is strongly related to fMRI activation during scenario reading (Main Text Figure 4). 6. Expanded the discussion section. * https://osf.io/rk92x/ * https://github.com/jcastrel/juror_fmri