<table style="border:1px solid #adadad; background-color: #F3F1EC; color: #666666; padding:8px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; line-height:16px; margin-bottom:6px;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><span style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:20px;font-weight:bold;">PsyPost – Psychology News Daily Digest (Unofficial)</span></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td> </td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/chatgpt-is-shifting-rightwards-politically/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">ChatGPT is shifting rightwards politically</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 28th 2025, 10:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>An examination of a large number of ChatGPT responses found that the model consistently exhibits values aligned with the libertarian-left segment of the political spectrum. However, newer versions of ChatGPT show a noticeable shift toward the political right. The paper was published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04465-z"><em>Humanities & Social Sciences Communications</em></a>.</p>
<p class="" data-start="446" data-end="875">Large language models (LLMs) are artificial intelligence systems trained to understand and generate human language. They learn from massive datasets that include books, articles, websites, and other text sources. By identifying patterns in these data, LLMs can answer questions, write essays, translate languages, and more. Although they don’t think or understand like humans, they predict the most likely words based on context.</p>
<p class="" data-start="877" data-end="1490">Often, the responses generated by LLMs reflect certain political views. While LLMs do not possess personal political beliefs, their outputs can mirror patterns found in the data they were trained on. Since much of that data originates from the internet, news media, books, and social media, it can contain political biases. As a result, an LLM’s answers may lean liberal or conservative depending on the topic. This doesn’t mean the model “believes” anything—it simply predicts words based on previous patterns. Additionally, the way a question is phrased can influence how politically slanted the answer appears.</p>
<p class="" data-start="1492" data-end="1815">Study author Yifei Liu and her colleagues aimed to explore whether—and how—the ideological stance of ChatGPT-3.5 and GPT-4 has changed over time. ChatGPT is one of the most popular and widely used LLMs, and the authors hypothesized that later versions might display a significant ideological shift compared to earlier ones.</p>
<p class="" data-start="1817" data-end="2105">To evaluate ChatGPT’s political orientation, the researchers used the Political Compass Test, a tool that maps political beliefs along two axes: economic (left–right) and social (authoritarian–libertarian). The study collected 3,000 responses from each GPT model included in the analysis.</p>
<p class="" data-start="2107" data-end="2503">The tests were conducted in developer mode and were designed to prevent earlier responses from influencing later ones. The sensitivity of the model was kept at the default setting to ensure the randomness of responses matched what regular users would experience. Prompts were submitted from three different accounts to account for possible variations in how the model responds to different users.</p>
<p class="" data-start="2505" data-end="3008">The results showed that ChatGPT consistently aligned with values in the libertarian-left quadrant. However, newer versions of the model exhibited a clear shift toward the political right. Libertarian-left values typically emphasize individual freedom, social equality, and voluntary cooperation, while opposing both authoritarian control and economic exploitation. In contrast, economic-right values prioritize free market capitalism, property rights, and minimal government intervention in the economy.</p>
<p>“This shift is particularly noteworthy given the widespread use of LLMs and their potential influence on societal values. Importantly, our study controlled for factors such as user interaction and language, and the observed shifts were not directly linked to changes in training datasets,” the study authors concluded.</p>
<p>“While this research provides valuable insights into the dynamic nature of value alignment in AI, it also underscores limitations, including the challenge of isolating all external variables that may contribute to these shifts. These findings suggest a need for continuous monitoring of AI systems to ensure ethical value alignment, particularly as they increasingly integrate into human decision-making and knowledge systems.”</p>
<p>The study sheds light on the current tendencies in ChatGPT responses. However, it is important to note that LLMs have no value systems of their own. Their responses depend on the selection of materials they are trained on and on instructions received by their developers. As these change, so will the answers provided by these systems.</p>
<p>The paper, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-04465-z">“Turning right”? An experimental study on the political value shift in large language models,</a>” was authored by Yifei Liu, Yuang Panwang, and Chao Gu.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/reduced-male-hormone-exposure-may-be-linked-to-autism-like-traits-in-males-study-suggests/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Reduced male hormone exposure may be linked to autism-like traits in males, study suggests</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 28th 2025, 08:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/child-and-adolescent-psychiatry/articles/10.3389/frcha.2024.1356802/full" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Frontiers in Child and Adolescent Psychiatry</a></em> has challenged a long-standing theory about why more males than females are diagnosed with autism and excel in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics fields. Researchers found that, contrary to popular belief, reduced exposure to male hormones during early development in males might actually be linked to traits often associated with autism, such as heightened sensory sensitivity and specific talents. This suggests a need to rethink current understandings of brain development and its connection to these traits.</p>
<p>For many years, scientists have tried to understand why autism spectrum disorder is diagnosed more frequently in males. One prominent idea, known as the Extreme Male Brain Theory, proposed that higher levels of male hormones (androgens), during prenatal development lead to a “hyper-masculine” brain. This brain type, according to the theory, is characterized by a strong drive to understand systems and rules, sometimes at the expense of social skills and empathy. This theory has been used to explain both autism and the perceived male dominance in fields like science and technology, suggesting that an excess of male hormones might push the brain towards these traits.</p>
<p>However, recent evidence has started to raise questions about this idea, especially when looking at males with autism. Some studies have even indicated that males with autism might show fewer, not more, typically masculine characteristics. This inconsistency prompted researchers at Sophia University, led by <a href="https://www.niad.ac.jp/english/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Atsuko Saito</a>, to explore whether the opposite of the Extreme Male Brain Theory might hold true: could reduced exposure to male hormones in males play a role in the development of autism-related traits?</p>
<p>Autism is sometimes seen alongside other conditions related to sex development and atypical gender identities, adding another layer of complexity to the question of hormones and brain development. The new study aimed to investigate this alternative possibility by examining groups of males who might experience reduced effects of male hormones during their early development.</p>
<p>“Among the authors’ acquaintances, individuals assigned male at birth with differences/disorders of sex development (DSDs) or sexual minority identities were occasionally observed to exhibit neurodevelopmental traits and exceptional talents, such as artistic abilities,” explained Shintaro Tawata, the first author of the study. “Additionally, the author’s personal experience with gender dysphoria motivated their interest in exploring the co-occurrence mechanisms between gender diversity and neurodevelopmental conditions.”</p>
<p>To investigate this, the researchers compared three groups of adult males: individuals with Klinefelter syndrome, sexual minorities, and a control group. Klinefelter syndrome is a genetic condition in males where they are born with an extra X chromosome (XXY instead of XY). This condition is often associated with lower levels of testosterone, especially after puberty, and some researchers believe that these individuals might have experienced reduced androgen activity even earlier in development.</p>
<p>Sexual minorities, in this study referring to individuals not identifying as heterosexual, were included because previous research suggests that some indirect markers of early androgen exposure, like finger length ratios and childhood play preferences, appear more feminized in gay men and male-to-female transgender individuals. The control group consisted of men who did not have Klinefelter syndrome and identified as heterosexual and cisgender (meaning their gender identity aligns with the sex they were assigned at birth).</p>
<p>The researchers recruited participants from hospitals, clinics, support groups, and through online platforms. For the Klinefelter syndrome group, 22 men participated. For the sexual minority group, 66 men participated. The first control group, used for initial comparisons, included 36 men. Later, a second, larger control group of 583 men was recruited to re-examine some findings.</p>
<p>All participants completed online questionnaires. These questionnaires measured several things: synesthesia, a condition where senses are blended (like seeing colors when hearing sounds); savant tendency, which refers to exceptional skills in specific areas, often alongside developmental conditions; sensory hypersensitivity or hyposensitivity, meaning experiencing senses more or less intensely than typical; and different aspects of sexuality, including sexual orientation and gender identity.</p>
<p>The researchers also asked about childhood play preferences to indirectly assess early masculinity. They analyzed the data to see if there were significant differences between the groups in these measured traits and how these traits related to each other.</p>
<p>The researchers found that men in the sexual minority group reported higher rates of synesthesia compared to the large control group. Individuals in both the sexual minority group and those with Klinefelter syndrome scored higher on a scale that measured unusual sensory sensitivities. In other words, they were more likely to experience heightened or reduced sensory input—an attribute linked in past studies to autism spectrum disorder.</p>
<p>The sexual minority group also showed elevated savant tendencies, such as unusual numerical or musical skills, stronger memories for certain stimuli, or advanced language talents. A key insight was that these traits were most common among participants who also felt some degree of discomfort with their assigned male identity. Men who identified as having gender dysphoria scored higher on a measure of sensory sensitivity and were more likely to report synesthesia. They also tended to show more of the cognitive traits often discussed under the umbrella of savant abilities, suggesting that gender identity might overlap in complex ways with brain development.</p>
<p>“Synesthesia, savant tendencies, and sensory hypersensitivity/hyposensitivity were notably prominent among individuals with gender dysphoria,” Tawata told PsyPost. “This suggests a possible shared mechanism between neurodevelopmental conditions and gender dysphoria in shaping aspects of self-concept.”</p>
<p>A central takeaway is that, at least among males at birth, low rather than high prenatal testosterone may play a part in shaping autism-related traits. This challenges the popular idea that a hypermasculine brain causes these traits. While some earlier studies do suggest that excess androgen activity during development can be linked to autism characteristics in females, the pattern may differ in males.</p>
<p>The current study supports the idea that variation in hormone effects can move in more than one direction to influence traits such as sensory perception and social-cognitive style. The authors offer a possible explanation involving disrupted systems for certain brain chemicals like gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) and oxytocin. These disruptions may lead to an imbalance in how neurons fire and form connections, which in turn could alter how people sense the world around them, how they develop their sense of self, and even how they experience empathy toward others.</p>
<p>“The study provides significant insights that challenge the conventional theory attributing autism primarily to early developmental sex hormone excess,” Tawata explained. “It also suggests a higher likelihood of individuals with neurodiversity or differences in sex development possessing ‘potentially advantageous traits,’ such as synesthesia and savant abilities, in addition to sensory sensitivities. These findings may contribute to deeper self-understanding and societal awareness of sexual minorities and neurodivergent individuals, fostering their empowerment.”</p>
<p>As with all research, the study carries a few limitations. For one, the sample of participants with Klinefelter syndrome and those identifying as a sexual minority was relatively small, so it may not capture the full breadth of experiences in these populations. Another point is that the surveys relied on self-reports. While this can be an excellent tool for collecting large amounts of data, it does require further confirmation, perhaps through direct cognitive testing or physiological measures that might detect subtle differences in hormonal activity.</p>
<p>“It is important to note that not all transgender individuals exhibit sensory hypersensitivity or savant abilities,” Tawata noted. “Similarly, individuals outside this group can also display strong sensory sensitivities or exceptional abilities, as indicated by distribution data. It is crucial to avoid overgeneralization, as it can lead to harmful misconceptions and reinforce stereotypes. Additionally, some limitations in sampling and methodology exist, highlighting the need for further research using diverse samples and approaches to verify these findings.”</p>
<p>Going forward, the team hopes to deepen our knowledge of how gender identity, sex chromosomes, and hormone exposure connect with specialized traits in perception and cognition.</p>
<p>“This line of research aims to contribute to the understanding of the mechanisms underlying neurodevelopmental conditions and gender dysphoria, while also contributing to deeper self-understanding and societal awareness of sexual minorities and neurodivergent individuals, fostering their empowerment,” Tawata said. “Furthermore, clarifying the multifaceted nature of perception, cognition, and the mechanisms underlying savant abilities is expected to contribute to improved educational and developmental support for individuals with neurodiversity.”</p>
<p>“Most existing literature on Klinefelter syndrome and other sex chromosome anomalies focuses on language difficulties, learning disabilities, and communication deficits. This study is significant in highlighting the presence of individual strengths. Additionally, while individuals with DSDs are often assumed to live according to their assigned gender role, the study makes visible the existence of a subset of this group that experiences gender dysphoria and its association with variations in perception and cognition.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.3389/frcha.2024.1356802" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Androgyny and atypical sensory sensitivity associated with savant ability: a comparison between Klinefelter syndrome and sexual minorities assigned male at birth</a>,” was authored by Shintaro Tawata, Kikue Sakaguchi, and Atsuko Saito.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/a-small-device-tracked-older-adults-conversations-and-revealed-a-hidden-link-to-brain-health/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">A small device tracked older adults’ conversations—and revealed a hidden link to brain health</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 28th 2025, 06:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new study published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-82144-w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Scientific Reports</a></em> has found that older adults who talk more throughout their day tend to perform better on tests of cognitive ability—particularly working memory, processing speed, and semantic fluency. The researchers used a novel, unobtrusive method to track speech in real life, offering an objective window into how social interaction and cognition are linked in healthy aging.</p>
<p>The study was driven by a long-standing question in aging research: how do social relationships and communication impact cognitive health in older adulthood? While previous studies have shown that staying socially active can help preserve thinking and memory skills, the methods used to measure social engagement have varied widely. Researchers often rely on broad questionnaires that ask people to recall how often they’ve socialized, attended events, or talked with others—approaches that can be affected by memory errors, personal bias, and inconsistent definitions.</p>
<p>To overcome these issues, the research team wanted a more direct and objective way to measure social activity. They chose to focus on one simple but revealing indicator: how much people actually speak during their day. The idea was that speech—especially spontaneous, everyday speech—is a strong signal of real-time social engagement. The researchers aimed to see whether this measure of speech could be meaningfully linked to specific cognitive abilities and life circumstances.</p>
<p>“We were interested in this topic because social engagement has been shown to be important for maintaining cognitive abilities in older adults, but measuring social activity objectively has been challenging. We wanted to explore using advanced technology to unobtrusively measure older adults’ real-life speech as an indicator of social activity, and examine how it relates to various cognitive abilities,” explained study author <a href="https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Patrick-Neff-2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Patrick Neff</a>, group and scientific project lead at <a href="https://www.tinnitus.uzh.ch/en/team/directors/neff.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the University of Zurich</a>.</p>
<p>The study included 83 healthy older adults living in Switzerland, aged 65 and up. Participants were part of a larger research project that monitored daily life using wearable sensors. Each person wore a small custom-built recording device, the size of a button, called the “uTrail.” This device captured 50-second audio snippets every 18 minutes during waking hours over the course of four weeks, producing a detailed sample of each person’s real-world speech patterns.</p>
<p><figure aria-describedby="caption-attachment-226801" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img fetchpriority="high" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-226801" src="https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/fpsyg-13-1011177-g003-1024x580.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="580" srcset="https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/fpsyg-13-1011177-g003-1024x580.jpg 1024w, https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/fpsyg-13-1011177-g003-300x170.jpg 300w, https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/fpsyg-13-1011177-g003-768x435.jpg 768w, https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/fpsyg-13-1011177-g003-750x425.jpg 750w, https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/fpsyg-13-1011177-g003-1140x646.jpg 1140w, https://www.psypost.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/fpsyg-13-1011177-g003.jpg 1418w" sizes="(max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px"><figcaption class="wp-caption-text">uTrail clip-on device. [<a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1011177/full" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Röcke et al.</a>]</figcaption></figure>To analyze this large amount of data, the researchers used a machine learning algorithm called Vocalise, which was trained to identify each participant’s voice using a short, clean sample recorded in a lab. This allowed the team to automatically detect when a participant was speaking and for how long—without needing to transcribe or listen to every recording. They then calculated each person’s total “speech ratio,” or the amount of time they were talking as a percentage of the total recording time.</p>
<p>The participants also completed a series of cognitive tests in the lab at the beginning of the study. These tests covered a range of mental abilities, including working memory (the ability to hold and manipulate information in mind), processing speed, verbal fluency (ability to name words quickly based on prompts), executive functioning, episodic memory, and verbal knowledge. In addition, participants provided detailed sociodemographic information, including age, gender, education, income, partner status, number of people in their household, feelings of loneliness, and a self-rating of their hearing ability.</p>
<p>Using a statistical approach called Elastic Net regression, the researchers examined which variables were most strongly linked to how much people spoke in their daily lives. Three cognitive abilities stood out. People who scored higher on working memory, processing speed, and semantic fluency tests were more likely to speak more often throughout the day.</p>
<p>“Higher levels of working memory, processing speed, and semantic fluency were associated with more speech in everyday life for older adults,” Neff told PsyPost. “This suggests these cognitive abilities may be particularly important for engaging in social conversations.”</p>
<p>“More broadly, our study demonstrates the value of using naturalistic data to gain insights into real-life behavior and cognitive functioning. By unobtrusively recording participants’ speech in their daily lives, we were able to capture authentic patterns of social interaction that may not be apparent in traditional lab-based studies. This approach provides a more ecologically valid picture of how cognitive abilities relate to social engagement in older adults’ everyday experiences.”</p>
<p>Interestingly, some sociodemographic factors also predicted speech behavior. The most powerful predictor was whether someone had a partner. Older adults without a partner—whether single, divorced, or widowed—tended to speak significantly less than those in a relationship. This supports the idea that partners play a key role in daily social interaction during later life.</p>
<p>Another surprising finding was that people who rated their hearing as better actually spoke less. One possible explanation is that those with hearing difficulties may overcompensate by talking more to avoid the challenges of listening, or may find themselves in more one-sided conversations.</p>
<p>“We were surprised to find that better subjective hearing status was associated with less speech in everyday life,” Neff said. “This was unexpected and may indicate that those with poorer hearing engage in more one-sided conversations where they do most of the talking. This could be seen as some kind of compensation strategy of individuals with bad hearing to engage with their (social) environment.”</p>
<p>The study also found no meaningful link between age and daily speech. In other words, within this relatively healthy sample of older adults, age alone did not determine how much someone talked. This may reflect the fact that all participants were cognitively intact and relatively high-functioning, so age-related decline may not have been strongly present.</p>
<p>“The other big surprise was to see that age really did not have any influence on the amount of uttered own speech,” Neff explained. “Here, we might have a bias of very active and healthy older adults participating in the study (selection bias).”</p>
<p>“Our partly surprising results highlight the importance of keeping an open and exploratory mindset when examining real-world data. These findings may reveal complexities in older adults’ social and cognitive functioning that are not captured by conventional research methods. Overall, this study showcases how innovative technologies and naturalistic observation can enhance our understanding of cognitive aging and social behavior in later life.”</p>
<p>Despite the innovative methods and rich dataset, the study has limitations. The sample was limited to 83 people and skewed toward healthy, well-functioning older adults. That means the findings might not apply to those with cognitive impairments or more diverse backgrounds. The machine learning method, while powerful, also comes with technical constraints. For example, the software only detected speech in five-second chunks.</p>
<p>“With the recent developments in AI in the last two years, we already transcended the technical options of the time when this study was conducted and analyzed,” Neff noted. “We’re currently working on a follow-up paper, where we a) further analyze own vs. other speech and their interactions as well as b) further elements of the auditory scene (environmental sounds, noises, media consumption etc.).”</p>
<p>“Our long-term goals are to further refine methods for unobtrusively measuring social activity in daily life and to conduct longitudinal studies examining how cognitive abilities and social engagement influence each other over time in older adults. We also aim to explore potential interventions to enhance social activity and cognitive functioning. The focus here is on real life data collection and application, using techniques like semantic activity analysis and transdisciplinary teams.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-82144-w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Cognitive abilities predict naturalistic speech length in older adults</a>,” was authored by Patrick Neff, Burcu Demiray, Mike Martin, and Christina Röcke.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/these-existing-medications-may-help-reduce-dementia-risk-new-study-suggests/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">These existing medications may help reduce dementia risk, new study suggests</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 27th 2025, 20:06</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>There’s currently no cure for dementia. Although <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/donanemab-licensed-for-early-stages-of-alzheimers-disease-in-adult-patients-who-have-one-or-no-copies-of-apolipoprotein-e4-gene">some recently developed drugs</a> show promise in <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/lecanemab-licensed-for-adult-patients-in-the-early-stages-of-alzheimers-disease">slowing the progress</a> of the disease, these are both costly and may have limited benefit for many patients.</p>
<p>However, a <a href="https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trc2.70037">recent Cambridge-led study</a> has found a link between commonly used prescription drugs – including antibiotics, antivirals and vaccines – and a lower risk of dementia.</p>
<p>Given these drugs are already licensed and their safety profiles well established, this could enable faster and more cost-effective clinical trials in the search for a cure.</p>
<p><a href="https://alz-journals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/trc2.70037">The study</a> analysed health data from 130 million people, including one million people who had been diagnosed with dementia. Having identified possible links with prescription drugs and dementia risk, the researchers conducted a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systematic_review">systematic review</a> of 14 studies to explore these links further and understand which prescription drugs might affect dementia outcomes.</p>
<p>This led them to the conclusion that antibiotics, antivirals and anti-inflammatory drugs were all associated with reduced dementia risk. The researchers also found a link between the hepatitis A, typhoid and diphtheria vaccines and lower dementia risk.</p>
<p>It’s unknown how long participants had been taking any of these prescription drugs or how many times they’d been prescribed them during their lifetime, so it will be important for future studies to investigate these factors.</p>
<h2>Immune reponse and brain health</h2>
<p>Based on their findings, the researchers suggest that the protective effects that these prescription drugs appear to have may be because they reduce inflammation, control infections and improve overall brain health.</p>
<p>This supports the theory that common types of dementia could be triggered by <a href="https://www.alzheimers.org.uk/about-dementia/managing-the-risk-of-dementia/possible-risks-of-dementia/infections#:~:text=Research%20suggests%20that%20infections%20may,you%20maintain%20good%20dental%20health.">viral or bacterial infections</a>. We know that infections that last a few days to several weeks, whether bacterial or viral, can cause great <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8668867">damage to the brain</a>. This is because infections cause an enhanced immune response from the body, which can damage brain cells – disrupting brain connections and <a href="https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35234334/">accelerating memory decline</a>.</p>
<p>Antivirals and antibiotics help combat infections, which in turn may dampen this excessive immune response. Meanwhile, vaccines can prevent these infections from occurring in the first place. In both cases, this can significantly reduce the risk of prolonged infections and their potentially devastating consequences for <a href="https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/immunology/articles/10.3389/fimmu.2022.872542/full">brain health</a>.</p>
<p>It’s also worth noting that other studies have also shown an association between the BCG vaccine, which protects against tuberculosis, and a <a href="https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S096999611730030X?via%3Dihub">decreased risk</a> of Alzheimer’s (a type of dementia).</p>
<h2>Inflammation and dementia risk</h2>
<p>Regarding the new study’s finding of a link between the use of anti-inflammatory medications and a reduced risk of dementia, notably non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) such as ibuprofen were identified as potentially protecting against memory decline.</p>
<p>Again, this is another piece of evidence suggesting that inflammation plays a <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8775769/">central role in dementia</a>.<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41392-023-01486-5">Inflammation</a> is the body’s natural way of defending itself against injury or infection. But when inflammation lasts too long, it can cause harm – particularly to the brain. Long-lasting inflammation releases chemicals that can <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10419139/#:~:text=During%20neuroinflammation%2C%20the%20participation%20of,that%20lead%20to%20neuronal%20damage.">damage healthy tissue</a>. These chemicals can damage brain cells and disrupt communication between them, which leads to memory loss.</p>
<p>Anti-inflammatory drugs work by blocking the production of certain molecules that <a href="https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7192366/#:~:text=The%20aspirin%20study%20found%20that,of%20the%20results%20on%20NSAIDs.&text=This%20review%20found%20no%20evidence,studies%20of%20the%20same%20medicines.">cause inflammation</a>. By doing this, they might help protect brain cells from damage caused by long-term inflammation.</p>
<h2>Next steps</h2>
<p>The evidence for the benefits of other types of drugs on dementia risk was less consistent. The study found that certain blood-pressure drugs, antidepressants and diabetes drugs were linked to both a lower and higher risk of dementia.</p>
<p>One possible reason is that these prescription drugs affect different biological processes. Even drugs designed to treat the same condition may target different biological mechanisms, which might explain the varying results.</p>
<p>For example, some blood pressure medications – such as ACE inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor <a href="https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.122.19378">blockers</a> (ARBs) – improve brain health by enhancing blood flow and reducing inflammation. On the other hand, <a href="https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article-abstract/40/Supplement_1/ehz748.0348/5598071">beta-blockers</a> primarily lower heart rate and may not provide the same neuroprotective benefits.</p>
<p>Diabetes drugs also had mixed associations with dementia risk. But as people with diabetes are already at a <a href="https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11892-014-0487-z">higher risk</a> of developing dementia, this makes it difficult to determine whether this association was due to the effects of the drugs themselves, or if diabetes is the main factor at play.</p>
<p>Overall, more research is needed to confirm this study’s findings and better understand how all these drugs appear to influence dementia risk. Randomised controlled trials will be crucial to see if these prescription drugs really can be repurposed to prevent dementia effectively. At the same time, looking into the biological mechanisms that are potentially affected by these drugs could shed light on the causes of dementia.</p>
<p>This research highlights the importance of addressing inflammation and infections as part of a broader strategy for maintaining brain health. And by finding new uses for existing drugs, scientists could deliver treatments to patients more quickly – offering hope in the fight against dementia.<!-- Below is The Conversation's page counter tag. Please DO NOT REMOVE. --><img decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/248041/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1"><!-- End of code. If you don't see any code above, please get new code from the Advanced tab after you click the republish button. The page counter does not collect any personal data. More info: https://theconversation.com/republishing-guidelines --></p>
<p> </p>
<p><em>This article is republished from <a href="https://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/dementia-why-prescription-drugs-like-antibiotics-and-vaccines-have-been-linked-to-lower-risk-of-the-disease-248041">original article</a>.</em></p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/partisan-identity-drives-social-polarization-more-than-race-or-religion-study-finds/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">Partisan identity drives social polarization more than race or religion, study finds</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 27th 2025, 14:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p><strong> </strong>A new study published in <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.13084"><em>Political Psychology</em></a> has found that partisan identity significantly outweighs other social factors, including race, religion, and social class, in driving social polarization in America. Dislike for opposing political groups appears more powerful than loyalty to one’s own party.</p>
<p>Political polarization in the United States continues to intensify beyond policy disagreements, seeping into everyday social interactions. Americans increasingly avoid or express hostility toward members of the opposing political party, affecting friendships, workplace relationships, and even family connections.</p>
<p>Researchers Julie M. Norman and Beniamino Green investigated whether this polarization stems primarily from political affiliation or whether other overlapping social identities might play equally important roles. Their study also examined whether individuals with “cross-cutting” identities—those who don’t fit typical partisan stereotypes—experience reduced polarization.</p>
<p>The researchers conducted a conjoint survey experiment with 1,330 participants, presenting them with pairs of hypothetical individuals described by various characteristics: political party, ideology, race, religion, income, and education level. Participants evaluated these profiles and indicated their social preferences—whom they would choose as a friend, neighbor, or family member.</p>
<p>By measuring both attitudes and projected interpersonal choices, the study distinguished between abstract partisan dislike and actual willingness to exclude others based on political identity.</p>
<p>The results clearly demonstrated that partisan identity outweighs all other social factors in shaping Americans’ attitudes toward others. Political party affiliation emerged as the strongest predictor of both in-group favoritism and out-group bias.</p>
<p>While both Democrats and Republicans preferred their own groups, the data revealed that out-group hostility was more intense than in-group loyalty. Americans appear more motivated by whom they dislike than whom they support. Democrats displayed particularly strong negative feelings toward Republicans compared to the reverse.</p>
<p>Contrary to expectations, having “cross-cutting” identities (such as being a conservative Democrat or a liberal Christian) did not reduce polarization. People with unexpected identity combinations weren’t treated more favorably, nor were they less likely to exhibit bias themselves.</p>
<p>Though less influential than politics, race and religion shaped social biases. Democrats generally viewed Black individuals more favorably than Republicans did, while Republicans showed less favorable attitudes toward non-Christians, particularly atheists and Muslims.</p>
<p>The authors acknowledge that while their study captures attitudes and preferences, it does not measure real-world interactions. Future research could explore whether these political biases manifest in actual behavior out in the world.</p>
<p>This research highlights political identity’s powerful role in shaping American social relationships. Even as the country grows more diverse, party affiliation remains the strongest dividing line.</p>
<p>However, the study suggests that in everyday social interactions, political hostility may be less pronounced than in abstract attitudes, potentially creating opportunities for community bridge-building.</p>
<p>The research, “<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.13084">Why Can’t We Be Friends? Untangling Conjoined Polarization in America</a>,” was authored by Julie M. Norman and Beniamino Green.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<table style="font:13px Helvetica, sans-serif; border-radius:4px; -moz-border-radius:4px; -webkit-border-radius:4px; background-color:#fff; padding:8px; margin-bottom:6px; border:1px solid #adadad;" width="100%">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td><a href="https://www.psypost.org/new-study-shows-lsd-changes-brain-connectivity-in-unique-ways-compared-to-mdma-and-amphetamines/" style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; letter-spacing:-1px;margin:0;padding:0 0 2px;font-weight: bold;font-size: 19px;line-height: 20px;color:#222;">New study shows LSD changes brain connectivity in unique ways compared to MDMA and amphetamines</a>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; text-align:left;color:#999;font-size:11px;font-weight:bold;line-height:15px;">Mar 27th 2025, 12:00</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; color:#494949;text-align:justify;font-size:13px;">
<p><p>A new brain imaging study has revealed that lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) alters brain connectivity in ways that are notably different from methylenedioxyamphetamine (MDMA) and d-amphetamine. While all three substances disrupt communication within certain brain networks, LSD produces broader and more distinctive changes—especially in regions associated with self-awareness and sensory processing. The findings suggest that not all substances often labeled as “psychedelics” affect the brain in the same way, and highlight the importance of making clear distinctions between different drug classes based on their biological effects.</p>
<p>The research was published in <em><a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-024-02734-y" target="_blank">Molecular Psychiatry</a></em>.</p>
<p>LSD, MDMA, and d-amphetamine are all psychoactive compounds known to produce changes in mood, perception, and cognition. LSD is a classic psychedelic known for inducing visual distortions, a sense of interconnectedness, and altered perception of time and self. It works primarily by activating serotonin 2A receptors in the brain, although it also influences dopamine and other neurotransmitters. </p>
<p>MDMA, often described as an “empathogen,” is known for enhancing feelings of emotional closeness and well-being. It mainly increases serotonin availability but also affects dopamine and norepinephrine. D-amphetamine, commonly used to treat attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, boosts dopamine levels and promotes wakefulness and focus.</p>
<p>“Our main interest lies in comparative psychedelic research. While psychedelics share a common mechanism — agonism at the serotonin 2A receptor (5-HT2AR) — they also have distinct neuropharmacological profiles,” said study author <a href="https://www.linkedin.com/in/mihai-avram-phd/" target="_blank">Mihai Avram</a>, a senior researcher at the <a href="https://translationalpsychiatry.de/team/mihai-avram/" target="_blank">University of Lübeck</a>, where he leads research on comparative psychedelic neuroimaging.</p>
<p>“Although doses can be matched based on 5-HT2AR activity, their effects on other receptors and transporters are often overlooked, despite their potential influence on both subjective experiences and therapeutic outcomes. These receptors and transporters are also relevant because they contribute to broader pharmacological effects, such as enhanced monoamine release and increased arousal.”</p>
<p>“In this study, we investigated whether a compound primarily associated with these general effects (d-amphetamine) induces similar changes in brain neurophysiology as a prototypical psychedelic (LSD). Additionally, we examined MDMA, which has some psychedelic-like properties and also produces such general pharmacological effects, albeit via different mechanisms. Understanding these differences is essential for advancing personalized psychiatry and optimizing the therapeutic applications of these substances.”</p>
<p>For their study, Avram and his colleagues used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to measure brain activity in 25 healthy volunteers who participated in a clinical trial in Basel, Switzerland. Each participant underwent four different sessions, receiving either 0.1 milligrams of LSD, 125 milligrams of MDMA, 40 milligrams of d-amphetamine, or a placebo, in randomized order. The study followed a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover design, meaning that participants received each substance at different times, but neither they nor the researchers knew which substance was given during a particular session.</p>
<p>Brain scans were collected while participants were at rest, allowing researchers to examine how different areas of the brain communicated with each other under the influence of each drug. The study focused on several different measures of brain connectivity: how tightly linked areas within the same network were (called “network integrity”), how separate or interconnected different networks were (“network segregation”), and how strongly individual brain regions communicated across the entire brain (“global connectivity”). The researchers also examined how these connectivity patterns related to the distribution of serotonin 2A receptors in the brain, using existing brain maps.</p>
<p>One of the study’s key findings was that all three substances reduced network integrity in the visual system and the frontoparietal network, which is involved in higher-level cognitive functions like attention and decision-making. These reductions suggest that sensory and cognitive systems become less cohesive under the influence of these drugs. However, the similarities largely stopped there.</p>
<p>“Psychedelics — specifically classic serotonergic psychedelics such as LSD, psilocybin, mescaline, and DMT — are often lumped together with related compounds like ketamine and MDMA,” Avram told PsyPost. “While what qualifies as a ‘psychedelic’ depends on the definition, one can distinguish ‘psychedelics’ based on their pharmacological properties (mechanism of action, with classic psychedelics acting primarily as 5-HT2AR agonists), phenomenological effects (such as pseudo-hallucinations, synesthesia, and mood changes), and neurophysiological effects, which we investigated using resting-state fMRI.”</p>
<p>“Our study clearly shows that MDMA is somewhat ‘unpsychedelic’ in terms of its neurophysiological effects: its effects on the brain more closely resemble those of d-amphetamine than those of LSD. This highlights the importance of distinguishing between different classes of psychoactive substances rather than assuming they have similar effects simply because they share certain subjective or therapeutic properties.”</p>
<p>LSD was the only substance to significantly reduce integrity in the default mode network—a brain system associated with self-reflection and daydreaming—which may help explain why LSD often produces a sense of ego dissolution. By contrast, MDMA and d-amphetamine did not significantly affect this network. In fact, LSD stood out in nearly every measure of between-network connectivity, increasing communication between brain networks more extensively than either amphetamine. This suggests that LSD leads to a breakdown of typical network boundaries, a pattern often reported in psychedelic research and believed to be linked to the vivid and interconnected experiences the drug induces.</p>
<p>Further analyses showed that LSD also increased connectivity between networks that handle sensory information and those responsible for internal thoughts and emotions. These changes were particularly pronounced in areas of the brain with high concentrations of serotonin 2A receptors, reinforcing the idea that LSD’s effects are strongly tied to this receptor system.</p>
<p>When the researchers examined “global connectivity,” or how central different brain regions were in the brain’s overall communication network, they found another major difference. LSD increased global connectivity in the thalamus and basal ganglia—areas involved in filtering sensory information and coordinating movement and motivation—while the amphetamines did not. These increases support the “thalamic filter” hypothesis of psychedelics, which proposes that these substances temporarily impair the brain’s ability to filter incoming information, allowing a flood of sensory and emotional data to reach conscious awareness.</p>
<p>In contrast, both MDMA and d-amphetamine decreased connectivity in some sensory regions and produced similar changes in the brain overall, despite their differing pharmacological targets. These similarities were surprising to the researchers, who had expected MDMA to resemble LSD more closely. Instead, the data showed that MDMA’s effects on the brain are more aligned with those of d-amphetamine, particularly in terms of which brain networks are disrupted and how.</p>
<p>“One of the most striking findings was that the connectivity patterns induced by d-amphetamine and MDMA were often nearly identical,” Avram said. “This is particularly intriguing given their distinct primary pharmacological profiles — d-amphetamine primarily affects the dopaminergic system, while MDMA is more serotonergic. We report such common effects in two <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2022.04.003" target="_blank">previous publications</a> <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpsc.2023.07.010" target="_blank">as well</a>. However, both compounds are structurally related and promote norepinephrine release, which may help explain the overlapping pharmacodynamic effects and, consequently, similar functional connectivity changes in the brain.”</p>
<p>But as with all research, there are some caveats to consider. For instance, the study used a crossover design, which means that participants took all four substances across multiple sessions. While the order of administration was randomized, there is still a chance that one drug’s effects could influence the next, especially if any long-lasting brain changes occur. Although the researchers found no evidence that this significantly skewed their results, they note that longer-term effects of these substances, particularly MDMA and amphetamines, remain poorly understood. </p>
<p>“One potential limitation lies in the randomized crossover design of our study, which could introduce confounds related to delayed effects,” Avram explained. ” A <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-024-07624-5" target="_blank">recent study by Siegel and colleagues</a> demonstrated that psychedelics can induce changes in brain connectivity that persist for weeks. We cannot completely rule out the possibility that d-amphetamine and MDMA also produce long-term effects, although presumably less likely. Even if they do not, the order of substance administration (e.g., taking LSD first) could still influence connectivity patterns observed in subsequent sessions, potentially affecting our results.”</p>
<p>Another consideration is that the study focused solely on healthy participants. While the results provide a detailed picture of how these drugs affect the brain under controlled conditions, it’s still unclear how these connectivity changes relate to therapeutic outcomes in people with mental health conditions. </p>
<p>“The next step is to compare different psychedelics directly,” Avram said. “We are nearing completion of a project comparing LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline. While our colleagues in Basel (<a href="https://biomedizin.unibas.ch/en/research/research-groups/liechti-lab/" target="_blank">Liechti lab</a>) have conducted extensive research on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of these substances, a direct comparison of their neural effects is still missing. In fact, direct imaging-based comparisons between psychedelics remain relatively rare, with some notable exceptions—such as <a href="https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.10.22.619393" target="_blank">recent work</a> by the Ramaekers lab in Maastricht.”</p>
<p>“Our mid- to long-term goal is to extend these investigations to clinical populations to better understand how these neural effects translate to therapeutic outcomes. Identifying potential predictors of treatment response could help refine the use of psychedelics in psychiatric settings and advance personalized treatment approaches.”</p>
<p>“We are grateful to the Liechti lab for pioneering comparative research in this field—for example, their studies comparing various stimulants (such as methylphenidate, MDMA, and modafinil) and different psychedelics (LSD, psilocybin, and mescaline),” Avram added. “The extensive data collected by their team has the potential to be highly valuable for advancing psychedelic neuroimaging research, providing a foundation for further investigations into the neural mechanisms underlying these substances.”</p>
<p>The study, “<a href="https://www.nature.com/articles/s41380-024-02734-y" target="_blank">Large-scale brain connectivity changes following the administration of lysergic acid diethylamide, d-amphetamine, and 3,4-methylenedioxyamphetamine</a>,” was authored by Mihai Avram, Lydia Fortea, Lea Wollner, Ricarda Coenen, Alexandra Korda, Helena Rogg, Friederike Holze, Patrick Vizeli, Laura Ley, Joaquim Radua, Felix Müller, Matthias E. Liechti, and Stefan Borgwardt.</p></p>
</div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica, sans-serif; font-size:13px; text-align: center; color: #666666; padding:4px; margin-bottom:2px;"></div>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><strong>Forwarded by:<br />
Michael Reeder LCPC<br />
Baltimore, MD</strong></p>
<p><strong>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. </strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p><s><small><a href="#" style="color:#ffffff;"><a href="https://blogtrottr.com/unsubscribe/565/DY9DKf">unsubscribe from this feed</a></a></small></s></p>