This permanently frozen landscape in the Arctic tundra, which has kept vast amounts of carbon locked away for thousands of years, is at risk of thawing and releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has identified the possibility of soil subsidence leading to a feedback loop that could trigger a rapid thaw as a major concern in the decades ahead. Accelerated thawing caused by uneven land subsidence has been observed on smaller scales over shorter time frames, but the IPCC’s assessments were uncertain as to what may happen over the long term.

That’s where ORNL stepped in with its Advanced Terrestrial Simulator, or ATS, a highly accurate, physics-based model of the region’s hydrology fed by detailed, real-world measurements to help scientists understand the land’s evolution.

What they found is that even though the ground will continue to sink as big ice deposits melt, the uneven subsidence also leads to a drier landscape and limits the process’s acceleration through the end of the century, as described in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“Improved drainage results in a drier landscape over a decadal timescale, and the process then becomes self-limiting,” said Scott Painter, who leads the Watershed Systems Modeling group at ORNL.

The scientists focused on a large region of the tundra characterized by ice wedges — long pieces of ice that crack the surface and extend belowground to create polygonal forms in the Arctic landscape. The cryo-hydrology simulations were informed by measurements gathered in the polygonal tundra.

The ATS was first developed for the Department of Energy’s NGEE Arctic project led by ORNL, focused on observations, experiments and modeling of the environmental processes at play in the region to improve climate predictions.

“We looked at the microtopography caused by these ice wedges in the subsurface and how that controls the flow of water,” Painter said. “Ours is the first capability to capture the effect of changing microtopography and represent it in climate models.”

Painter added that the team has a high degree of confidence in the model since it was developed for NGEE Arctic and has been evaluated against the project’s real-world observations.

He noted that most models, including ORNL’s, are in agreement in generally projecting large amounts of carbon thaw in the Arctic as temperatures rise. “But here, we have identified that one of the most worrisome processes, this runaway thawing due to subsidence, is unlikely to occur over a long time frame.”

The study pointed out other implications of a drying landscape. “As the polygonal tundra gets very dry, by the year 2100 it could have ecological impacts for migratory birds, which use these ecosystems as breeding grounds,” Painter said.

Other scientists collaborating on the study include ORNL’s Ethan Coon; Ahmad Jan, formerly of ORNL and now at the NOAA-affiliated Office of Water Prediction; and Julie Jastrow of Argonne National Laboratory.

The research was supported by NGEE Arctic, which is sponsored by the DOE Office of Science’s Biological and Environmental Research Program and led by ORNL, and BER’s Environmental System Science Program at Argonne. NGEE Arctic supported the original development of ATS as well as recent enhancements to incorporate subsidence into the model.

The futuristic sounding treatment would work by switching on LED lights embedded close to a tumour, which would then activate biotherapeutic drugs.

These new treatments would be highly targeted and more effective than current state-of-the-art cancer immunotherapies.

New research published today reveals the science behind this innovative idea.

It shows how the UEA team have engineered antibody fragments — which not only ‘fuse’ with their target but are also light activated.

It means that in future, immunotherapy treatments could be engineered to attack tumours more precisely than ever before.

The principal scientist for this study, Dr Amit Sachdeva, from UEA’s School of Chemistry, said: “Current cancer treatments like chemotherapy kill cancer cells, but they can also damage healthy cells in your body such as blood and skin cells.

“This means that they can cause side effects including hair loss, feeling tired and sick, and they also put patients at increased risk of picking up infections.

“There has therefore been a very big drive to create new treatments that are more targeted and don’t have these unwanted side-effects.

“Several antibodies and antibody fragments have already been developed to treat cancer. These antibodies are much more selective than the cytotoxic drugs used in chemotherapy, but they can still cause severe side effects, as antibody targets are also present on healthy cells.”

Now, the UEA team has engineered one of the first antibody fragments that binds to, and forms a covalent bond with, its target — upon irradiation with UV light of a specific wavelength.

Dr Sachdeva said: “A covalent bond is a bit like melting two pieces of plastic and fusing them together. It means that drug molecules could for example be permanently fixed to a tumour.

“We hope that our work will lead to the development of a new class of highly targeted light-responsive biotherapeutics. This would mean that antibodies could be activated at the site of a tumour and covalently stick to their target upon light activation.

“In other words, you could activate antibodies to attack tumour cells by shining light – either directly on to the skin, in the case of skin cancer, or using small LED lights that could be implanted at the site of a tumour inside the body.

“This would allow cancer treatment to be more efficient and targeted because it means that only molecules in the vicinity of the tumour would be activated, and it wouldn’t affect other cells.

“This would potentially reduce side effects for patients, and also improve antibody residence time in the body.”

“It would work for cancers like skin cancer, or where there is a solid tumour – but not for blood cancers like leukaemia.

“Development of these antibody fragments would not have been possible without pioneering work from several other research groups across the globe who developed and optimised methods for site-specific incorporation of non-natural amino acids into proteins expressed in live cells.

“We employed some of these methods to site-specifically install unique light-sensitive amino acids into antibody fragments.”

If the researchers are successful in the next stages of their work, they hope to see the ‘next generation’ light-activated immunotherapies being used to treat cancer patients within five to 10 years.

This research was funded by the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) and the Wellcome Trust. It was led by the University of East Anglia with assistance from the proteomics facility at the John Innes Centre.

But some parents may not be properly measuring or responding to elevated temperatures in children, a new national poll suggests.

While most parents recognize that a low-grade fever helps a child’s body fight off infection, one in three would give fever-reducing medication for spiked temperatures below 100.4 — which isn’t recommended — according to the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital National Poll on Children’s Health at University of Michigan Health.

Half of parents would also use medicine if the fever was between 100.4 and 101.9 degrees, and a quarter of parents would likely give another dose to prevent the fever from returning.

“Often parents worry about their child having a fever and want to do all they can to reduce their temperature. However, they may not be aware that in general the main reason to treat a fever is just to keep their child comfortable,” said Mott Poll co-director and Mott pediatrician Susan Woolford, M.D.

“Some parents may immediately rush to give their kids medicine but it’s often better to let the fever runs its course. Lowering a child’s temperature doesn’t typically help cure their illness any faster. In fact, a low-grade fever helps fight off the infection. There’s also the risk of giving too much medication when it’s not needed, which can have side effects.”

The report is based on 1,376 responses from parents of children ages 12 and under polled between August and September 2022.

Two in three parents polled say they’re very confident they know whether their child needs medication to reduce a fever. But just over half are sure they understand how temperature readings can change according to the method used.

The method used to take a child’s temperature matters and can affect the accuracy of the measurement, Woolford notes. Parents polled most commonly take their child’s temperature by forehead scan or mouth while less than a sixth use ear, underarm or rectal methods.

Remote thermometers at the forehead or inside the ear canal can be accurate if used correctly. But forehead readings may be inaccurate, Woolford says, if the scanner is held too far away or if the child’s forehead is sweaty. With ear thermometers, which aren’t recommended for newborns, earwax can also interfere with the reading.

For infants and young children, rectal temperatures are most accurate. Once children are able to hold a thermometer in their closed mouth, oral temperatures also are accurate while armpit temperatures are the least accurate method.

“Contact thermometers use electronic heat sensors to record body temperature but temperatures may fluctuate depending on how it’s measured,” Woolford said.

“Regardless of the device used, it’s important that parents review the directions to ensure the method is appropriate for the child’s age and that the device is placed correctly when measuring temperature.”

Three in four parents say they take their child’s temperature as soon as they notice a possible problem, while a little less than a fourth wait to see if the problem continues or worsens before taking the temperature.

Two-thirds of parents also prefer to try methods like a cool washcloth before using fever-reducing medication. Most parents also say they always or usually record the time of each dose and re-take their child’s temperature before giving another dose.

“A quarter of parents would give their child more medicine to prevent a fever from returning even though it doesn’t help them get better,” Woolford said. “If a child is otherwise doing well, parents may consider monitoring them and using alternative interventions to help keep them comfortable.”

However, if a newborn or infant less than three months old has a fever, they should immediately see a health professional, Woolford adds.

She shares more tips on how to handle fevers in kids:

Fevers can help fight infections

A fever can be beneficial, and there are several reasons to let a low-grade fever run its course in older children — mainly because it’s working as a weapon to kill the virus or bacteria causing sickness, Woolford says.

Evidence shows that fevers are part of the immune response to prevent viruses and bacteria from replicating and also produce more white blood cells and antibodies.

Fever-reducing medications also mask symptoms.

“Medications used to lower temperatures also treat pain, but pain is often a sign that helps to locate the source of an infection,” Woolford said. “By masking pain, fever-reducing medication may delay a diagnosis being made and delay receiving treatment if needed.”

She adds that parents may also be tempted to take kids in public when they noticeably seem better after medicine when in fact they’re still highly contagious and may infect others.

If you do use medicine, be careful about not overmedicating

When parents choose to give fever-reducing medication, it’s helpful to keep a log of temperature readings and when medicine was given. This will provide an accurate record in the event that the child’s fever continues for an extended period of time.

Parents of young children in particular should also avoid using combination cold medications along with fever-reducing medications due to the risk of over dosage.

“As we know, all medications can have side effects and we really don’t want children to get too much medication when it’s not necessary,” Woolford said.

When communicating with the child’s provider to help determine the best recommendations about treatment, it’s helpful for parents to share the timeline of the child’s fever, doses of fever-reducing medication, other symptoms and how the child is acting compared to their “usual” behavior.

Try alternatives to relieving child’s discomfort

Parents may consider other interventions to relieve discomfort and aid in more restful sleep instead of medicine, Woolford says.

Such approaches could include keeping their room cool and not letting them overexert themselves, as well as ensuring the child is in light clothing and encouraging them to stay well hydrated with fluids or popsicles.

Be aware of signs to call the doctor

For infants and newborns three months and younger, any sign of a fever should prompt a call to the provider.

For children 4-12 months, parents should consult with a doctor if a fever is accompanied by signs such as decreased activity, increased fussiness, or decreased urine output. Parents should also call if their child has signs of pain or if they are not acting themselves even when their temperature comes down.

Fevers that reach 104 degrees or fevers that remain for an extended period (more than 24 hours for children under two, or more than three days for children ages two and older) should prompt contact with the provider.

But despite the improvement in detecting individuals at risk, the technology-based screening did not reduce the time between the participants’ first psychotic symptoms and when they received treatment.

The findings are in a new UC Davis Health study published in JAMA Psychiatry.

Previous studies have shown that the longer the time between the first psychotic incident — such as hallucinations or delusions — and receiving treatment, the more severe the course of the disease. According to the National Institute of Mental Health, psychosis often begins when a person is in his or her late teens to mid-twenties. About 100,000 new cases of psychosis are diagnosed each year in the U.S.

“The addition of a brief screener at the initial evaluation can make a dramatic difference in clinical decision-making, helping you to realize that an individual needs specialized care,” said Tara A. Niendam, first author of the study. Niendam is a professor and executive director of the UC Davis Health Early Psychosis Programs.

Methods

Data came from ten community clinics and four school sites. Sites were divided by those that used tablets for screening (“active screening”) and those that screened using clinical judgment (“treatment as usual”).

For the sites with active screening, individuals between the ages of 12 and 30 completed a questionnaire on a tablet before their visit with a mental health care provider.

Known as the PQ-B (Prodromal Questionnaire, Brief Version), questions included “Do familiar surroundings sometimes seem strange, confusing, threatening or unreal to you?” and “Have you seen things that other people can’t see or don’t seem to see?”

If the questionnaire score was 20 or above, the participant was offered a referral to an early psychosis clinic for further evaluation.

Sites not using active screening relied on clinical judgment for further evaluation and referrals to early psychosis clinics.

Results

The researchers evaluated data from 2,432 individuals at the active-screening sites and 2,455 at the treatment-as-usual sites.

Active-screening sites reported a significantly higher detection rate of psychosis spectrum disorders, with 136 cases (5.6%), compared to 65 (2.6%) in the sites that did not use the tablet screening.

The active-screening sites also referred 13 individuals with first-episode psychosis compared to four in the sites that did not use active screening.

But despite the early detection, the data showed no statistically significant difference in the duration of untreated psychosis. The mean for the active screening group was 239 days. The mean was 262.3 for the treatment-as-usual group.

The researchers noted this was likely due to multiple factors leading to delayed access to the mental health system in the U.S.

“On average, our participants experienced untreated psychosis for approximately six months before presenting at one of our participating clinic sites,” said Mark Savill, assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences and a co-author of the study. “A multifaceted approach that focuses on supporting individuals to seek help quicker and improving the pathway to appropriate services once they present for care may be necessary to achieve meaningful reductions in the duration of untreated psychosis.”

Young people at risk are not being identified

Twenty-four sites agreed to participate. However, only ten community clinics and four school sites were able to fully implement the screening. Some study sites, such as primary care clinics, faced challenges implementing the screenings and reporting feedback; schools struggled with staffing issues and parent engagement.

The setbacks highlight some of the challenges that might be faced scaling up programs that offer the active screening. But the results highlight how many young people at risk of psychosis are not being identified with the current system.

“Population-based screening for psychosis has not been addressed systematically in the U.S. prior to this study,” said Cameron S. Carter, senior author of the paper. Carter is a distinguished professor of psychiatry and psychology and director of the UC Davis Health Imaging Research Center and the Behavioral Health Center for Excellence.

“Our increased identification of cases using the PQ-B questionnaire is an important finding. More people in this active group are getting into care,” Carter said. “That’s important because we know from previous research that individuals who are identified and receive treatment at the very early stages in their illness are likely to have the best outcomes.”

If you or a loved one think you may be experiencing symptoms of psychosis, the Early Psychosis Programs at UC Davis Health offer a free online screening survey.

Additional authors on the study includeTyler A. Lesh, Daniel Ragland, Khalima Bolden, Haley Skymba, Sarah Gobrial, Monet Meyer, Katherine Pierce, Adi Rosenthal, Taylor Fedechko, Laura Tully, Valerie Tryon, Rosemary Cress and Richard Kravitz from UC Davis; Rachel Loewy and Kevin Delucchi from UCSF; and Howard Goldman from University of Maryland, Baltimore.