Rapid tryptophan depletion improves decision-making cognition in healthy humans without affecting reversal learning or set shifting

Rapid tryptophan (Trp) depletion (RTD) has been reported to cause deterioration in the quality of decision making and impaired reversal learning, while leaving attentional set shifting relatively unimpaired. These findings have been attributed to a more powerful neuromodulatory effect of reduced 5-HT on ventral prefrontal cortex (PFC) than on dorsolateral PFC. In view of the limited number of reports, the aim of this study was to independently replicate these findings using the same test paradigms. Healthy human subjects without a personal or family history of affective disorder were assessed using a computerized decision making/gambling task and the CANTAB ID/ED attentional set-shifting task under Trp-depleted (n=17; nine males and eight females) or control (n=15; seven males and eight females) conditions, in a double-blind, randomized, parallel-group design. There was no significant effect of RTD on set shifting, reversal learning, risk taking, impulsivity, or subjective mood. However, RTD significantly altered decision making such that depleted subjects chose the more likely of two possible outcomes significantly more often than controls. This is in direct contrast to the previous report that subjects chose the more likely outcome significantly less often following RTD. In the terminology of that report, our result may be interpreted as improvement in the quality of decision making following RTD. This contrast between studies highlights the variability in the cognitive effects of RTD between apparently similar groups of healthy subjects, and suggests the need for future RTD studies to control for a range of personality, family history, and genetic factors that may be associated with 5-HT function.

Keeping a sense of proportion but losing all perspective: a critique of Gorard's notion of the 'Politician's Error'

In 1999 Stephen Gorard published an article in this journal in which he provided a trenchant critique of what he termed the `politician's error' in analysing differences in educational attainment. The main consequence of this error, he argued, has been the production of misleading findings in relation to trends in educational performance over time that have, in turn, led to misguided and potentially damaging policy interventions. By using gender differences in educational attainment as a case study, this article begins by showing how Gorard's notion of the politician's error has been largely embraced and adopted uncritically by those within the field. However, the article goes on to demonstrate how Gorard's own preferred way of analysing such differences – by calculating and comparing proportionate changes in performance between groups – is also inherently problematic and can lead to the production of equally misleading findings. The article will argue that there is a need to develop a more reliable and valid way of measuring trends in educational performance over time and will show that one of the simplest ways of doing this is to make use of existing, and widely accepted, measures of effect size.

What is a reasonable time from decision to delivery by Caesarean section? Evidence from 533 deliveries.

Objective To determine how long it takes from the decision to achieve delivery by non-elective caesarean section (DDI), the influence on this interval, and the impact on neonatal condition at birth. Design Twelve months prospective data collection on all non-elective caesarean sections. Methods Prospective collection of data relating to all caesarean sections in 1996 in a major teaching hospital obstetric unit was conducted, without the knowledge of the other clinicians providing clinical care. Details of the indication for section, the day and time of the decision and the interval till delivery were recorded as well as the seniority of the surgeon, and condition of the baby at birth. Results The mean time from decision-to-delivery for 100 emergency intrapartum caesarean sections was 42.9 minutes for fetal distress and 71.1 minutes for 230 without fetal distress (P<0.0001). For 22 'crash' sections the mean time from decision-to-delivery was 27.4 minutes; for 13 urgent antepartum deliveries for fetal reasons it was 124.7 minutes and for 21 with maternal reasons it was 97.4 minutes. The seniority of the surgeon managing the patient did not appear to influence the interval, nor did the time of day or day of the week when the delivery occurred. Intrapartum sections were quicker the more advanced the labour, and general anaesthesia was associated with shorter intervals than regional anaesthesia for emergency caesarean section for fetal distress (P<0.001). Babies born within one hour of the decision tended to be more acidaemic than those born later, irrespective of the indication for delivery. Babies tended to be in better condition when a time from decision-to-delivery was not recorded than those for whom the information had been recorded. Conclusion Fewer than 40% intrapartum deliveries by caesarean section for fetal distress were achieved within 30 minutes of the decision, despite that being the unit standard. There was, however, no evidence to indicate that overall an interval up to 120 minutes was detrimental to the neonate unless the delivery was a 'crash' caesarean section. These data thus do not provide evidence to sustain the recommendation of a standard of 30 minutes for intrapartum delivery by caesarean section.