Your Daily digest for PsyPost – Psychology News Daily Digest (Unofficial)

[Article Digests for Psychology & Social Work]

PsyPost – Psychology News Daily Digest (Unofficial)

 

(https://www.psypost.org/women-experiencing-more-protective-paternalism-tend-to-see-their-male-partners-as-less-reliable/) Women experiencing more protective paternalism tend to see their male partners as less reliable
Aug 5th 2024, 10:00

A study in Australia revealed that women experiencing more protective paternalism tended to feel greater psychological distress and to be less satisfied with their relationship. They also tended to see their partners as less reliable and more patronizing and undermining. The paper was published in (https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241256695) Social Psychological and Personality Science.
In modern societies, people can experience sexism in different forms. Hostile sexism refers to overtly negative attitudes and behaviors towards individuals based on their gender. It is characterized by hostility, derogation, and aggression. It manifests in actions that demean, belittle, or undermine the targeted gender.
Benevolent sexism, on the other hand, involves seemingly positive attitudes and behaviors that are patronizing and reinforce traditional gender roles. Although it appears protective or idealizing, benevolent sexism ultimately upholds gender inequality by perpetuating stereotypes and limiting the targeted gender’s autonomy and opportunities.
Research shows that hostile sexism is clearly linked to poorer psychological and physical health in women. In the context of romantic relationships, men’s endorsement of hostile sexism in associated with correspondingly negative behaviors toward their partner. These behaviors, in turn, undermine partners’ satisfaction with the relationship and their well-being. In contrast, women’s experiences of benevolent sexism and its effects are less predictable, because these forms of sexism also offer benefits.
Study author by Beatrice Alba and her colleagues wanted to explore women’s experiences of benevolent sexism in their intimate relationships with men and its associations with experiences with the relationship as a whole. They focused on three subtypes of benevolent sexism – protective paternalism, complementary gender differentiation, and heterosexual intimacy.
Protective paternalism refers to the belief that men should protect and provide for women, viewing them as needing care and guidance. Complementary gender differentiation idealizes women for their perceived unique qualities, such as nurturing and purity, which are seen as complementary to men’s traits. Heterosexual intimacy romanticizes the relationship between men and women, suggesting that women fulfill men’s emotional and relational needs, often emphasizing traditional romantic roles.
The researchers used data from three surveys conducted between 2021 and 2022, which included 1,597 participants. For this analysis, they focused on 724 women aged 18 to 81 who were currently in relationships with men.
Participants reported their experiences of benevolent sexism using the Experiences of Benevolent Sexism Scale, and they provided information on their perceptions of partner reliability (e.g., “My partner is the kind of person who will stick by me through good times and bad”), partner patronizing and undermining behavior (e.g., “In your relationship with your partner, to what extent do you find him to be: patronizing, controlling, dominant”), psychological distress (measured by the K10 scale), relationship satisfaction (e.g., “I feel satisfied with our relationship”), and endorsement of hostile sexism (measured by the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory).
Results showed that women who frequently experienced protective paternalism from their partners reported greater psychological distress and lower relationship satisfaction. They also perceived their partners as less reliable and more patronizing and undermining.
The results for complementary gender differentiation were mixed. Women experiencing this subtype, characterized by praise for traditional female roles such as caregiving, reported lower psychological distress but also lower relationship satisfaction and negative perceptions of their partners’ reliability.
However, participants experiencing more heterosexual intimacy tended to perceive their partners as more reliable and less patronizing. They also reported higher relationship satisfaction, although there was no significant association with their psychological distress.
Overall, older participants tended to report lower psychological distress. Women in longer relationships, those with children, and women born in Australia (compared to those born overseas) tended to report lower relationship satisfaction. Women with more education tended to report lower psychological distress, while those that were employed tended to report a bit more.
“Women’s experiences of benevolent sexism within their relationships with men were associated with mixed costs and benefits for personal and relational wellbeing. Experiences of protective paternalism were most strongly associated with negative evaluations of their partner and relationship. By contrast, and despite being highly associated with other experiences of benevolent sexism, women’s experiences of heterosexual intimacy were associated with greater relationship wellbeing. Finally, experiencing complementary gender differentiation was associated with higher personal wellbeing, but poorer relationship wellbeing,” the study authors concluded.
The study sheds light on the links between experiences of benevolent sexism and relationship experiences. However, it also has limitations that need to be taken into account. Notably, the design of the study does not allow any cause-and-effect inferences to be drawn from the data. Additionally, all the data were self-reported leaving room for reporting bias to affect the results. Future research could benefit from longitudinal studies and reports from both partners to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how benevolent sexism operates within relationships.
The paper, “(https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506241256695) Women’s Experiences of Benevolent Sexism in Intimate Relationships With Men Are Associated With Costs and Benefits for Personal and Relationship Wellbeing,” was authored by Beatrice Alba, Emily J. Cross, and Matthew D. Hammond.

(https://www.psypost.org/algorithms-and-outrage-how-social-media-shapes-political-hostility/) Algorithms and outrage: How social media shapes political hostility
Aug 5th 2024, 08:00

Once upon a time, newly minted graduates dreamt of creating online social media that would bring people closer together.
That dream is now all but a distant memory. In 2024, there aren’t many ills social networks don’t stand accused of: the platforms are singled out for spreading (https://theconversation.com/desinformation-politique-quelques-cles-pour-se-proteger-196309) “fake news”, for serving as Russian and Chinese vehicles to destabilise democracies, as well as for capturing our attention and selling it to shadowy merchants through micro targeting. The popular success of documentaries and essays on the allegedly huge social costs of social media illustrates this.
One of those critical narratives, in particular, accuses digital platforms and their algorithms of amplifying political polarisation and hostility online. Some have gone so far as to say that in online discussions, “(https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2998181.2998213) anyone can become a troll”, i.e., turn into an offensive and cynical debater.
Recent scholarship in quantitative social sciences and scientific psychology, however, provides important nuance to this pessimistic discourse.
The importance of social context and psychology
To start with, several studies suggest that if individuals regularly clash over political issues online, this is partly due to psychological and socioeconomic factors independent of digital platforms.
In our large scale (https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/spkyz) cross-cultural study, we surveyed more than 15,000 people about their experiences of online conversations about social issues. Interviews were carried out via representative panels in 30 countries across six continents. Our first finding is that it is in economically unequal and less democratic countries (e.g., Turkey, Brazil) that individuals are most often victims of online hostility on social media (e.g., insults, threats, harassment, etc.). A phenomenon which seems to derive from frustrations generated by more repressive social environments and political regimes.
These graphs show the statistical association between exposure to online political hostility and the liberal democracy index (V-dem) or the level of economic inequality (World Bank Gini estimates) in 30 countries.
Our study also shows that the individuals who indulge most in online hostility are also those who are higher in status-driven risk taking. This personality trait corresponds to an orientation towards dominance, i.e., a propensity to seek to submit others to one’s will, for instance through intimidation. According to our cross-cultural data, individuals with this type of dominant personality are more numerous in unequal and non-democratic countries. Similarly, independent analyses show that dominance is a key element in the psychology of political conflict, as it also predicts more sharing of (https://osf.io/k7u68) “fake news” mocking or insulting political opponents, and more attraction to (https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781003057680-5/beyond-populism-michael-bang-petersen-mathias-osmundsen-alexander-bor) offline political conflict, in particular.
The level of online political hostility as a function of the level of status-driven risk taking (15 000 users surveyed). The light grey lines are estimates by country, the dark line represents the overall average association.
Replicating a (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/psychology-of-online-political-hostility-a-comprehensive-crossnational-test-of-the-mismatch-hypothesis/C721597EEB77CC8F494710ED631916E4) previous study, we also find that individuals high in status-driven risk taking, who most admit to behaving in a hostile manner online, are also those most likely to interact in an aggressive or toxic manner in face-to-face discussions (the correlation between online and hostility is quite strong: β = 0.77).
In summary, online political hostility appears to be largely the product of the interplay between particular personalities and social contexts repressing individual aspirations. It is the frustrations associated with social inequality that have made these people more aggressive, activating tendencies to see the world in terms of (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0963721419862289) “us” vs “them”. On a policy level, if we are to bring about a more harmonious Internet (and civil society), we will likely have to tackle wealth inequality and make our political institutions more democratic.
Networks: prisms exaggerating ambient hostility
Although (https://osf.io/preprints/psyarxiv/spkyz) our study puts online political hostility into perspective, it does not deny social media platforms any causal role in fuelling political polarisation and hostility.
Social networks allow content to be spread (https://global.oup.com/academic/product/cultural-evolution-in-the-digital-age-9780198835943) faithfully to millions of people instantaneously (unlike verbal communication, where (https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.202050205) inevitable distortions occur). Because of this, they make it possible to misinform or anger millions of people at very little cost. This is true whether the false or toxic information is intentionally created to generate clicks, or whether it is the unintended side-effect of the political biases of a given political group.
If exchanges on social networks often lack civility, it’s also because of the possibility they offer of exchanging with anonymous and depersonalised strangers. This experience, (https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/psychology-of-online-political-hostility-a-comprehensive-crossnational-test-of-the-mismatch-hypothesis/C721597EEB77CC8F494710ED631916E4) unique to the Internet age, reduces our sense of personal responsibility and empathy towards interlocutors whom we no longer see as individuals but as the (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37604989/) interchangeable members of political “tribes”.
Recent analyses also remind us that social networks operate less as a mirror than as a (https://www.puf.com/le-prisme-des-reseaux-sociaux) distorting prism for the diversity of opinions in society.
Indeed, outraged and potentially insulting political posts are generally written by people who are more committed to express themselves and more radical than the average person, whether it’s to signal their commitments, express anger, or mobilise others to join political causes. Even when they represent a relatively small proportion of the written output on the networks, moralistic and hostile posts tend to be promoted by (http://toxicdata.chavalarias.org) algorithms programmed to push forward content capable of attracting attention and triggering responses, of which divisive political messages are an important part.
On the other hand, the majority of users, who are more moderate and less dogmatic, are more reluctant to get involved in political discussions that rarely reward good faith in argumentation and often escalate into outbursts of hatred.
These selection and perception biases combine to produce the misleading impression that radical and hostile beliefs are more widespread and more morally tolerated than they actually are.
When exposure to opposing views annoys
That said, the social media use seems to contribute to increasing political hostility and polarisation through at least one mechanism: exposure to caricatural versions of the political convictions of one’s rivals.
Contrary to widespread belief, most of our virtual connections (https://kf-site-production.s3.amazonaws.com/media_elements/files/000/000/133/original/Topos_KF_White-Paper_Nyhan_V1.pdf) don’t typically (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aaa1160) take on (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-81531-x) the form of “echo chambers”, isolating us into silos of homogeneous political worldviews.
Although some networks are indeed constructed in this way (4Chan or certain sub-Reddits), the largest platforms such as (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook) Facebook (three billion users) and (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twitter) X (550 million) typically present us with a certain diversity of opinions. This diversity is often greater than the political diversity of our friendships: are you still in regular contact with school friends who took a far right turn? Probably not, but it’s more likely that you read their Facebook posts.
This exposure to ideological otherness is desirable, in theory, as it should help us discover the blind spots in our (https://www.penguinrandomhouse.com/books/533524/the-knowledge-illusion-by-steven-sloman-and-philip-fernbach/) political knowledge and convictions, acknowledge our common (https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoth%C3%A8se_du_contact) humanity, and therefore make us both more humble and more respectful of each other. Unfortunately, the way in which most people express their political convictions – both on social media and at the coffee machine – is rather lacking in nuance and tactfulness. It tends to reduce opposing positions to demonised caricatures, and is less concerned with persuading the other side than with (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31618235/) signaling devotion to particular groups or causes, (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352250X22001075) galvanising people who already agree with you, and (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-020-0452-1) maintaining connections with like-minded friends.
Based on (https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1804840115) field experiments carried out on Twitter and interviews with Democrat and Republican activists, sociologist Chris Bail has issued a warning to us in his book (https://www.puf.com/le-prisme-des-reseaux-sociaux) The Prism of Social Networks. He explains that repeated exposure to unconvincing claims or headlines produced by our political enemies (a fortiori posts attacking one’s ingroup) can paradoxically reinforce partisans from each side in their pre-existing positions and (https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2207159119) identities, rather than bringing them closer to each other in terms of worldviews and sentiments.
Users were invited to follow Twitter bots (algorithms) retweeting political messages opposed to their own opinions for one month. The horizontal axis represents their ideological shift following this exposure to opposing views at different levels of participation in the study. For both Republicans and Democrats, more participation in the study (i.e., more exposure to opposing views) seems to lead to a strengthening of pre-existing political attitudes, in a direction opposite from content disseminated by the bots. However, these effects were statistically significant only among Republican users, likely because the sample size was too small. (Bor, Marie, Pradella, Petersen, Fourni par l’auteur)
However, this relationship between social media use and political polarization seems to depend a lot on duration of exposure and does not appear in all the samples surveyed. Thus, (https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.add8424) recent (https://www.jonathanmladd.com/uploads/5/3/6/6/5366295/effects_of_facebook_access_french_presidential_election-_mpsa_2023.pdf) studies exploring the (https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.2321584121) effects of stopping Facebook and Instagram  use failed to observe that social media noticeably polarize users’ political opinions.
Let us always remember that narratives pointing to (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1090513817301976) threats on society enjoy a considerable (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0128421) competitive advantage on the market of ideas and conversations, due to their (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-019-0224-y) attractiveness to our minds. One should thus approach the question of the relationship between social media, and political hostility and polarisation, by avoiding the symmetrical pitfalls of naive optimism and collective panic.
 
This article is republished from (https://theconversation.com) The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the (https://theconversation.com/is-social-media-fuelling-political-polarisation-232749) original article.

(https://www.psypost.org/adhd-patients-show-high-rates-of-narcissistic-personality-disorder/) ADHD patients show high rates of narcissistic personality disorder
Aug 5th 2024, 06:00

In a study published in the (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022395624002383) Journal of Psychiatric Research, researchers investigated the prevalence of narcissistic personality traits among adults with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). They found that a notable proportion of ADHD patients exhibited signs of narcissistic personality disorder and that these narcissistic traits were particularly associated with symptoms of hyperactivity and impulsivity, rather than inattention.
ADHD is a prevalent neurodevelopmental condition characterized by persistent patterns of inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity. Affecting approximately 2.8% of adults globally, ADHD often leads to significant functional impairments in social, emotional, and professional domains. Symptoms typically manifest in childhood and can persist into adulthood, where they continue to impact daily functioning.
Narcissism, on the other hand, is a complex personality trait that involves an inflated sense of self-importance and a deep need for admiration and validation. Grandiose narcissism is characterized by overt expressions of superiority, dominance, and entitlement. Individuals with grandiose narcissism often display high self-esteem, confidence, and a desire for attention and admiration.
On the other hand, vulnerable narcissism involves a more covert form of narcissism, marked by sensitivity to criticism, feelings of inadequacy, and a constant need for reassurance. Individuals with vulnerable narcissism often experience intense shame, anxiety, and depression, and they may react defensively or withdraw in response to perceived threats to their self-esteem.
Previous studies have highlighted significant associations between ADHD and various personality disorders, including borderline, schizotypal, antisocial, and histrionic personality disorders. Among these, narcissistic personality disorder stands out due to its potential impact on self-esteem regulation and interpersonal functioning. Given that narcissism encompasses both grandiosity and vulnerability, understanding its relationship with ADHD could offer valuable insights into managing these patients more effectively.
Despite existing knowledge on the coexistence of ADHD and personality disorders, few studies have explored the specific connection between ADHD and narcissistic traits. The new study aimed to fill that gap by examining the prevalence of narcissistic pathology in adult ADHD patients and exploring its associations with ADHD symptoms and outcomes.
The study involved 164 adults diagnosed with ADHD, seeking treatment at a specialized unit for adult ADHD and borderline personality disorder. Participants were predominantly female (63.4%) with an average age of 36.5 years. The study included only those who met specific inclusion criteria: being at least 18 years old, having a confirmed diagnosis of ADHD, and providing informed consent for the use of their health data in research.
To assess ADHD, researchers used the ADHD Child Evaluation Plus (ACE+), a semi-structured diagnostic interview that incorporates criteria from both the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5).
Additionally, participants with symptoms of borderline and narcissistic personality disorders were evaluated using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV Personality Disorders adapted for DSM-5 (SCID). Narcissistic traits were measured using two self-report tools: the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (NPI) and the Pathological Narcissism Inventory – Brief form (PNI).
The study also collected data on various other psychiatric disorders, including major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, anxiety disorders, obsessive-compulsive disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, autism spectrum disorder, and substance use disorders. Participants’ demographic information, such as age, gender, education level, employment status, and marital status, was also recorded.
The study revealed that 9.5% of the ADHD patients had narcissistic personality disorder, a prevalence significantly higher than the general population’s estimate of about 1%. Furthermore, narcissistic traits, as measured by the PNI, showed strong associations with ADHD symptoms related to hyperactivity and impulsivity, but not with inattentive symptoms. Both narcissistic grandiosity and vulnerability were linked to these ADHD dimensions.
Narcissistic traits were also associated with several adverse psychosocial outcomes, including anxiety, depression, impulsiveness, and lower quality of life. Notably, narcissistic vulnerability was particularly connected to emotion dysregulation and a history of hospitalization, suicide attempts, and non-suicidal self-injury. These associations persisted even after adjusting for the presence of borderline personality disorder, suggesting that narcissistic vulnerability has a unique impact on the clinical severity of ADHD.
While this study provides valuable insights, it has some limitations that should be considered. First, the sample was predominantly female, which may not represent the broader population of adults with ADHD. Additionally, the high prevalence of borderline personality disorder in the sample could have influenced the findings, given the overlapping symptoms and comorbidities between these disorders.
Future research should aim to include more diverse and representative samples, with balanced gender distributions and broader assessments of various personality disorders. Longitudinal studies could also help clarify the developmental trajectories and causal relationships between ADHD, narcissistic traits, and associated psychosocial outcomes. Additionally, investigating the neurobiological underpinnings of these associations could provide deeper insights into the shared mechanisms driving these complex interactions.
“However, despite these numerous limitations, we believe that our results may be of interest, especially when considering the scarcity of research conducted on narcissism in ADHD,” the researchers concluded. “Indeed, they provide novel and significant insights on an understudied and potentially important aspect of personality pathology in adult with ADHD and could serve as a basis for future research.”
The study, “(https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.04.032) Adult ADHD and pathological narcissism: A retrospective-analysis,” was authored by Miguel Duarte, Martin Blay, Roland Hasler, Eleonore Pham, Rosetta Nicastro, Marlène Jan, Martin Debbané, and Nader Perroud.

(https://www.psypost.org/new-study-sheds-light-on-why-apoe4-variant-increases-alzheimers-risk/) New study sheds light on why APOE4 variant increases Alzheimer’s risk
Aug 4th 2024, 12:00

Scientists have uncovered a significant clue to understanding why some individuals are more susceptible to Alzheimer’s disease. Published in the journal (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49028-z) Nature Communications, this new research reveals how a genetic variant called apolipoprotein E (APOE) interacts with a protein known as amyloid-beta. This interaction influences the likelihood of developing Alzheimer’s disease. Specifically, the study highlights that the APOE4 variant increases the harmful effects of amyloid-beta accumulation in the brain, providing a potential target for new therapies.
Alzheimer’s disease is a debilitating neurodegenerative condition characterized by memory loss, cognitive decline, and personality changes. A key hallmark of the disease is the buildup of amyloid-beta protein in the brain, forming clumps known as plaques, which start accumulating decades before symptoms appear. These plaques disrupt brain cell function and contribute to the disease’s progression.
APOE is the most significant genetic risk factor for Alzheimer’s, with three common forms: APOE2, APOE3, and APOE4. While APOE2 is associated with a reduced risk, and APOE3 has no significant impact, APOE4 dramatically increases the risk of developing Alzheimer’s.
The researchers aimed to understand how the APOE4 variant affects amyloid-beta accumulation and toxicity in the brain. By clarifying this relationship, they hoped to identify new therapeutic targets that could potentially slow or prevent the onset of Alzheimer’s disease, particularly for individuals with the APOE4 variant.
To investigate this, the scientists employed a novel approach by converting human skin cells into brain-like cells, creating models that mimic the human brain environment. They isolated amyloid-beta clumps from the brains of Alzheimer’s patients with different APOE gene variants. They then examined how these clumps interacted with the brain-like cells.
The researchers found that all forms of the APOE gene interact with amyloid-beta during its early stages of accumulation in the brain. However, the APOE4 variant stands out because it causes amyloid-beta to become more toxic to brain cells and accelerates its buildup more rapidly than the other variants, APOE2 and APOE3.
This increased toxicity and accelerated accumulation are crucial because amyloid-beta plaques, which begin forming decades before symptoms of Alzheimer’s appear, are one of the earliest indicators of the disease. The damaging effects of these plaques disrupt brain cell function, leading to cognitive decline and memory loss characteristic of Alzheimer’s disease.
One of the most significant findings of the study is the identification of specific harmful clumps, or aggregates, formed by the interaction of APOE4 with amyloid-beta. These APOE4-amyloid-beta aggregates were shown to be particularly damaging to brain cells, suggesting that they play a pivotal role in the progression of Alzheimer’s.
By focusing on these harmful aggregates, the researchers propose that therapies targeting the removal or neutralization of APOE4-amyloid-beta clumps could mitigate the damage amyloid-beta causes to brain cells. This approach has the potential to enhance the clearance of toxic amyloid-beta and slow down its accumulation, opening new avenues for therapeutic strategies against Alzheimer’s disease.
Suman De from the University of Sheffield’s Institute for Translational Neuroscience, the lead author of the study, explained: “What’s particularly exciting about our findings is that we have identified a specific target – APOE4-Aβ co-aggregates or clumps. By focusing on removing these clumps, we can mitigate the damage amyloid-beta causes to brain cells, enhance the clearance of toxic amyloid-beta, and potentially slow down its accumulation. This opens up potential for new therapies that target these specific protein clusters, offering a new avenue for combating Alzheimer’s disease.”
The study also highlighted the limitations of current treatments that target amyloid-beta removal in the brain. Although recent therapies have shown some promise, their effects are modest, especially for patients carrying the APOE4 gene. These treatments are typically administered in the later stages of the disease when significant brain cell damage has already occurred due to Aβ buildup. The findings from this study suggest that earlier intervention targeting the specific harmful aggregates formed by APOE4 and amyloid-beta could be more effective in slowing or preventing the progression of Alzheimer’s disease.
De added: “This discovery explains why individuals with a specific variant of the inherited APOE gene are at a much higher risk of developing Alzheimer’s. Although this risk associated with the APOE gene has been known for decades, our study illuminates the specific mechanisms by which different variants of the APOE gene influence the accumulation of amyloid-beta and thus affect the likelihood of developing the disease.”
The study, “(https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49028-z) Co-aggregation with Apolipoprotein E modulates the function of Amyloid-β in Alzheimer’s disease,” was authored by Zengjie Xia, Emily E. Prescott, Agnieszka Urbanek, Hollie E. Wareing, Marianne C. King, Anna Olerinyova, Helen Dakin, Tom Leah, Katy A. Barnes, Martyna M. Matuszyk, Eleni Dimou, Eric Hidari, Yu P. Zhang, Jeff Y. L. Lam, John S. H. Danial, Michael R. Strickland, Hong Jiang, Peter Thornton, Damian C. Crowther, Sohvi Ohtonen, Mireia Gómez-Budia, Simon M. Bell, Laura Ferraiuolo, Heather Mortiboys, Adrian Higginbottom, Stephen B. Wharton, David M. Holtzman, Tarja Malm, Rohan T. Ranasinghe, David Klenerman, and Suman De.

Forwarded by:
Michael Reeder LCPC
Baltimore, MD

This information is taken from free public RSS feeds published by each organization for the purpose of public distribution. Readers are linked back to the article content on each organization's website. This email is an unaffiliated unofficial redistribution of this freely provided content from the publishers. 

 

(#) unsubscribe from this feed
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.clinicians-exchange.org/pipermail/article-digests-clinicians-exchange.org/attachments/20240805/eced2ef1/attachment.htm>