Ticle, or the decision to submit the article for publication.Individual differences in sensitivity to contextInstead of an overall enhancing effect of Luminespib custom synthesis social rank feedback on risk taking and reward processing, we found individual differences in the behavioral and neural responses to feedback type, suggesting that at least some girls appeared sensitive to the feedback manipulation. Behavioral differences in sensitivity to feedback type could not be explained by differences in developmental stage (as measured by age, hormone level, pubertal stage, or BMI). However, exploratory analyses revealed that individual differences in relative decision speed corresponded with differences in resistance to peer influence (RPI) for decisions that involved a small chance of winning (i.e. high-risk decisions). purchase 6-Methoxybaicalein Although these findings suggest that differences in the behavioral sensitivity to feedback type might be related to differences in traits rather than developmental stage, this exploratory finding calls for replication. Furthermore, we cannot rule out the role of development, especially since RPI increases with age (Steinberg and Monahan, 2007). Future longitudinal research is needed to confirm whether the behavioral sensitivity to feedback type may be more reflective of trait-like, as opposed to developmental factors. In contrast, individual differences in brain processes associated with risk taking were associated with pubertal maturation. Specifically, girls with higher levels of estradiol (but not testosterone) activated AI more strongly for risk taking in the social rank, but not the monetary feedback condition. Given that differences in estradiol level, relative to testosterone level, are more reflective of differences in pubertal maturation among girls (Biro et al., 2014), this finding suggests that social context moderates the relation between pubertal maturation and insula activation (in the context of risk taking). This idea is consistent with studies that reported increased AI involvement in adolescence (Smith et al., 2014b) and provides additional insight into the potential underlying mechanism (i.e. puberty-related changes) and context (i.e. social) in which these developmental processes are most salient. Although a longitudinal follow-up is needed to confirm whether changes in estradiol (reflective of pubertal maturation in girls) are indeed associated with increases in insula activation over time, this finding suggests that biological and social influences on brain processes associated with adolescent risk taking interact.AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Kiren Chand, Megan Johnson, Adelle Cerreta, Melissa Allen, Emmellia Dale, Christina Kirby, Erin Badduke, Angela Weinberg, Sohee Kim, and Monique Porsandeh, for their help with data collection. We would also like to thank Sarah Munro, for programming the fMRI task, as well as Carter Wendelken, Michael Vendetti, Yana Fandakova, Amal Achaibou and Jenny Phan, for their help with data analysis.Supplementary dataSupplementary data are available at SCAN online. Conflict of interest. None declared.
Nephro Urol Mon. 2015 January; 7(1): e25560. Published online 2015 January 20.Association Between Metabolic Syndrome and Coronary Heart Disease in Patients on HemodialysisResearch Article1 2 31Department of Nephrology, Imam Hossein Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran 2Department of Biostatistics, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, IR Iran 3D.Ticle, or the decision to submit the article for publication.Individual differences in sensitivity to contextInstead of an overall enhancing effect of social rank feedback on risk taking and reward processing, we found individual differences in the behavioral and neural responses to feedback type, suggesting that at least some girls appeared sensitive to the feedback manipulation. Behavioral differences in sensitivity to feedback type could not be explained by differences in developmental stage (as measured by age, hormone level, pubertal stage, or BMI). However, exploratory analyses revealed that individual differences in relative decision speed corresponded with differences in resistance to peer influence (RPI) for decisions that involved a small chance of winning (i.e. high-risk decisions). Although these findings suggest that differences in the behavioral sensitivity to feedback type might be related to differences in traits rather than developmental stage, this exploratory finding calls for replication. Furthermore, we cannot rule out the role of development, especially since RPI increases with age (Steinberg and Monahan, 2007). Future longitudinal research is needed to confirm whether the behavioral sensitivity to feedback type may be more reflective of trait-like, as opposed to developmental factors. In contrast, individual differences in brain processes associated with risk taking were associated with pubertal maturation. Specifically, girls with higher levels of estradiol (but not testosterone) activated AI more strongly for risk taking in the social rank, but not the monetary feedback condition. Given that differences in estradiol level, relative to testosterone level, are more reflective of differences in pubertal maturation among girls (Biro et al., 2014), this finding suggests that social context moderates the relation between pubertal maturation and insula activation (in the context of risk taking). This idea is consistent with studies that reported increased AI involvement in adolescence (Smith et al., 2014b) and provides additional insight into the potential underlying mechanism (i.e. puberty-related changes) and context (i.e. social) in which these developmental processes are most salient. Although a longitudinal follow-up is needed to confirm whether changes in estradiol (reflective of pubertal maturation in girls) are indeed associated with increases in insula activation over time, this finding suggests that biological and social influences on brain processes associated with adolescent risk taking interact.AcknowledgementsWe would like to thank Kiren Chand, Megan Johnson, Adelle Cerreta, Melissa Allen, Emmellia Dale, Christina Kirby, Erin Badduke, Angela Weinberg, Sohee Kim, and Monique Porsandeh, for their help with data collection. We would also like to thank Sarah Munro, for programming the fMRI task, as well as Carter Wendelken, Michael Vendetti, Yana Fandakova, Amal Achaibou and Jenny Phan, for their help with data analysis.Supplementary dataSupplementary data are available at SCAN online. Conflict of interest. None declared.
Nephro Urol Mon. 2015 January; 7(1): e25560. Published online 2015 January 20.Association Between Metabolic Syndrome and Coronary Heart Disease in Patients on HemodialysisResearch Article1 2 31Department of Nephrology, Imam Hossein Hospital, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, IR Iran 2Department of Biostatistics, Mazandaran University of Medical Sciences, Sari, IR Iran 3D.
