RESUMO
The landscape of psychiatry is ever evolving and has recently begun to be influenced more heavily by new technologies. One novel technology which may have particular application to psychiatry is the metaverse, a three-dimensional digital social platform accessed via augmented, virtual, and mixed reality (AR/VR/MR). The metaverse allows the interaction of users in a virtual world which can be measured and manipulated, posing at once exciting new possibilities and significant potential challenges and risks. While the final form of the nascent metaverse is not yet clear, the immersive simulation and holographic mixed reality-based worlds made possible by the metaverse have the potential to redefine neuropsychiatric care for both patients and their providers. While a number of applications for this technology can be envisioned, this article will focus on leveraging the metaverse in three specific domains: medical education, brain stimulation, and biofeedback. Within medical education, the metaverse could allow for more precise feedback to students performing patient interviews as well as the ability to more easily disseminate highly specialized technical skills, such as those used in advanced neurostimulation paradigms. Examples of potential applications in brain stimulation and biofeedback range from using AR to improve precision targeting of non-invasive neuromodulation modalities to more innovative practices, such as using physiological and behavioral measures derived from interactions in VR environments to directly inform and personalize treatment parameters for patients. Along with promising future applications, we also discuss ethical implications and data security concerns that arise when considering the introduction of the metaverse and related AR/VR technologies to psychiatric research and care.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES: Circulating endothelial cells (CECs) are indicative of vascular injury and correlate with severity of vascular diseases. A pilot study showed that the ratio of CEC to platelet count (CEC/PC) was effective in predicting cirrhosis. Therefore, we evaluated CEC/PC in a larger cohort of patients, correlated it with cirrhosis, and compared its operating characteristics with previously described biomarker for cirrhosis, the AST/platelet ratio index (APRI). METHODS: Fifty-three patients with cirrhosis, 20 matched healthy controls, and 9 patients with noncirrhotic liver disease were recruited. Peripheral blood sample was collected and analyzed to enumerate nucleated CEC CD146+, CD105+, CD45- using a commercial assay. RESULTS: Median CEC counts were significantly higher in patients with cirrhosis (62 cells/4 mL, interquartile range [IQR]: 43.5-121) as compared with controls (31 cells/4 mL, IQR: 22.2-40). The CEC/PC was also significantly elevated in cirrhotics (0.69, IQR: 0.39-1.48) compared with controls (0.12, IQR: 0.09-0.20) and noncirrhotics (0.21, IQR: 0.08-0.43). Receiver operator characteristic (ROC) analysis revealed that CEC cutoff value of ≥37 cells/4 mL showed sensitivity of 81% and specificity of 75% for differentiating cirrhosis from controls (area under the curve [AUC]: 0.80; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67-0.91). The CEC/PC ratio cutoff value of ≥0.23 showed sensitivity of 91% and specificity of 82% (AUC: 0.92; 95% CI 0.83-0.99). The APRI cutoff value of ≥0.4 showed sensitivity of 94% and specificity of 85% for differentiating cirrhosis from control patients (AUC: 0.96; 95% CI 0.90-1.0). A product of CEC and APRI, termed CAPRI (CEC-APRI), effectively distinguished patients with cirrhosis from controls; with cutoff value of ≥12.7, showing higher sensitivity of 98% and specificity of 85% (AUC: 0.98; 95% CI 0.96-1.0). CONCLUSION: The CEC/PC ratio is significantly elevated in patients with cirrhosis and demonstrates comparable operating characteristics to previously described APRI. Furthermore, CAPRI, compiled as product of CEC to APRI showed outstanding ability to distinguish patients with cirrhosis from controls, although larger studies are necessary for validation.
