An Overview on Recent Progress of Metal Oxide/Graphene/CNTs-Based Nanobiosensors

Nanobiosensors are convenient, practical, and sensitive analyzers that detect chemical and biological agents and convert the results into meaningful data between a biologically active molecule and a recognition element immobilized on the surface of the signal transducer by a physicochemical detector. Due to their fast, accurate and reliable operating characteristics, nanobiosensors are widely used in clinical and nonclinical applications, bedside testing, medical textile industry, environmental monitoring, food safety, etc. They play an important role in such critical applications. Therefore, the design of the biosensing interface is essential in determining the performance of the nanobiosensor. The unique chemical and physical properties of nanomaterials have paved the way for new and improved sensing devices in biosensors. The growing demand for devices with improved sensing and selectivity capability, short response time, lower limit of detection, and low cost causes novel investigations on nanobiomaterials to be used as biosensor scaffolds. Among all other nanomaterials, studies on developing nanobiosensors based on metal oxide nanostructures, graphene and its derivatives, carbon nanotubes, and the widespread use of these nanomaterials as a hybrid structure have recently attracted attention. Nanohybrid structures created by combining these nanostructures will directly meet the future biosensors’ needs with their high electrocatalytic activities. This review addressed the recent developments on these nanomaterials and their derivatives, and their use as biosensor scaffolds. We reviewed these popular nanomaterials by evaluating them with comparative studies, tables, and charts.

Autoimmune encephalopathies presenting as dementia of subacute onset and rapid progression

The terms autoimmune dementia and autoimmune encephalopathy may be used interchangeably; autoimmune dementia is used here to emphasize its consideration in young-onset dementia, dementia with a subacute onset, and rapidly progressive dementia. Given their potential for reversibility, it is important to distinguish the rare autoimmune dementias from the much more common neurodegenerative dementias. The presence of certain clinical features [e.g. facio-brachial dystonic seizures that accompany anti-leucine-rich-glioma-inactivated-1 (LGI1) encephalitis that can mimic myoclonus] can be a major clue to the diagnosis. When possible, objective assessment of cognition with bedside testing or neuropsychological testing is useful to determine the degree of abnormality and serve as a baseline from which immunotherapy response can be judged. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) head and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) analysis are useful to assess for inflammation that can support an autoimmune etiology. Assessing for neural autoantibody diagnostic biomarkers in serum and CSF in those with suggestive features can help confirm the diagnosis and guide cancer search in paraneoplastic autoimmune dementia. However, broad screening for neural antibodies in elderly patients with an insidious dementia is not recommended. Moreover, there are pitfalls to antibody testing that should be recognized and the high frequency of some antibodies in the general population limit their diagnostic utility [e.g., anti-thyroid peroxidase (TPO) antibodies]. Once the diagnosis is confirmed, both acute and maintenance immunotherapy can be utilized and treatment choice varies depending on the accompanying neural antibody present and the presence or absence of cancer. The target of the neural antibody biomarker may help predict treatment response and prognosis, with antibodies to cell-surface or synaptic antigens more responsive to immunotherapy and yielding a better overall prognosis than those with antibodies to intracellular targets. Neurologists should be aware that autoimmune dementias and encephalopathies are increasingly recognized in novel settings, including post herpes virus encephalitis and following immune-checkpoint inhibitor use.

Current practice and challenges in screening for visual perception deficits after stroke: a qualitative study

AIMWe aimed to document current clinical practice and needs in screening for visual perception problems after stroke to inform development of new screening tools.METHODSWe interviewed 25 health care professionals (12 occupational therapists, 13 orthoptists) from 16 organisations in England. Interviews were transcribed and coded in NVivo Software. Data were thematically analysed using the Value Proposition Canvas, a model which establishes what people want to achieve, the challenges they face and what facilitates their jobs.RESULTSParticipants’ understanding of visual perception varied and often included sensory and cognitive deficits. Occupational therapists commonly screened for visual field deficits and hemispatial neglect, while other aspects of visual cognition were rarely assessed. They decided on referrals to orthoptists for further assessment. Screening generally occurred during functional assessments and/or with in-house developed tools. Challenges to practice were: lack of time, lack of training, environmental and stroke survivor factors (e.g. aphasia), insufficient continuation of care, and test characteristics (e.g. not evidence-based). Facilitators to practice were: quick and practical tools, experienced staff or tools with minimal training requirements, a streamlined care pathway between a stroke unit and eye hospital supported by occupational therapists and orthoptists.CONCLUSIONScreening employs non-standardised assessments and rarely covers visual perceptual deficits in higher order perception. Our service evaluation demonstrates the need for a standardised visual perception screen, which should ideally be 15 minutes or less, be portable, and require minimal equipment. The screen should be suitable for bedside testing in noisy environments, inclusive for participants with aphasia and evidence-based.