Thursday, August 14, 2025

CARIBOU TO YOU

Arctic reindeer populations could decline by 80 per cent by 2100




University of Adelaide




Researchers predict that future climatic change is likely to cause declines in reindeer abundances and their distribution at rates rarely seen over the last 21,000 years.

Reindeer, also known as caribou in North America, are an Ice Age species that have survived many episodes of Arctic warming. They are uniquely adapted to Arctic environments, where they regulate ecosystems and sustain the livelihoods of many Indigenous Peoples.

Despite being one of the most abundant herbivores in the Arctic, climate change has contributed to a loss of nearly two-thirds of their global abundance over the last three decades.

An international team of researchers, led by the University of Adelaide and University of Copenhagen, looked back 21,000 years and examined how reindeer responded to past climatic events, asking whether they will be able to cope in the future.

“Using fossils, ancient DNA and computer models, we reconstructed changes in the abundance and distribution of reindeer over the past 21,000 years at resolutions never done before, and we directly compared these to future predictions,” says lead investigator Dr. Elisabetta Canteri, from the University of Adelaide and University of Copenhagen.

“This revealed that populations of reindeer have experienced major declines during periods of rapid climate warming, but the losses expected in the coming decades due to future climate change are likely to be even more severe than those in the past.”

The research team identified populations in North America as being particularly vulnerable.

“Our forecasts show that these North American caribou populations are most at risk from climate warming, with declines of up to 80 per cent likely by 2100 unless there are major cuts to greenhouse gas emissions and increased investment in wildlife management and conservation,” says Associate Professor Damien Fordham, Deputy Director of the Environment Institute at the University of Adelaide, who co-led the research.

“These declines are likely to have far-reaching ecological implications that will further increase the vulnerability of caribou in North America and reindeer in Eurasia to climatic warming and other stressors.”

Reindeer and caribou help maintain plant diversity in the tundra by feeding on some plants and influencing how others grow, meaning that where they disappear, plant diversity is likely to decline.

“A reduction in tundra plant diversity resulting from the loss of reindeer and caribou will have many cascading effects, including reduction of carbon storage in Arctic soils,” says Professor Eric Post, from University of California Davis, who contributed to this research.

“Continued losses will likely further exacerbate climatic warming through release of soil carbon to the atmosphere, which of course would further threaten reindeer and caribou as well as ourselves.”

“For thousands of years, the wellbeing of our own species has benefitted directly from healthy reindeer and caribou  populations. Now more than ever we need to ensure their wellbeing in turn.”

Associate Professor Fordham says the results of this research, published in Science Advances, show urgent action is required.

“Increasing investment in the management and conservation of reindeer and caribou populations, particularly in North America, where losses are forecast to be greatest, will benefit the persistence of this species and the services it provides to Arctic ecosystems and the communities that depend on them,” he says.

 

MSU study finds print wins over digital for preschoolers learning to read




Michigan State University





Aug. 11, 2025

                       
Why this matters:

  • A new MSU study shows that simple, hands-on activities, such as writing letters and pointing out words in daily life, are the most effective way to build early reading skills. Both children with and without speech and/or language impairments experienced literacy gains from print-related activities; however, only children with typical learning development experienced benefits from shared book reading.

  • All children who spent more time on literacy games, both digital and analog, scored lower on early reading assessments.

  • The findings challenge the idea that more exposure to learning games always helps, raising important questions for parents, educators and developers about which strategies best support early literacy.

EAST LANSING, Mich. – When it comes to teaching preschoolers their ABCs, sticking with the basics might just be more effective. Despite the rise of digital tools and educational games, learning to read still begins with simple, hands-on work, such as writing letters and spotting words in everyday life.

New findings from Michigan State University researchers suggest that some popular approaches for learning may not be as practical as parents think. Preschoolers who played more literacy games scored lower on reading assessments, while those engaged in print-focused activities saw the most significant gains.

The study, published in the Journal of Research in Reading, was led by professors Lori Skibbe and Ryan Bowles in the Department of Human Development and Family Studies at the College of Social Science, as well as Nick Waters, a former postdoctoral researcher. Funding was supported by the U.S. Department of Education and the National Institutes of Health.

Study background and methodology

The home literacy environment represents an important but small period when children in preschool learn literacy skills outside the classroom. It often represents activities related to print and shared book reading.

To understand how home routines shape early reading, the researchers identified three common types of literacy activities: print-focused activities, which includes direct work with letters and words, such as writing names, pointing out print on signs or practicing letter sounds; shared book reading, including reading picture books aloud, going to the library or discussing stories; and literacy games, which includes digital or analog games like flashcards, apps or alphabet videos.

The study included more than 1,000 children between the ages of 3 and 6, with a diverse sample of families from across one Midwestern state. About 800 of the children had typical development, while over 200 had speech and/or language impairments.

Skibbe and Bowles assessed children’s literacy development using three foundational skills: letter-name knowledge, recognizing and naming letters; letter-sound knowledge, identifying the sounds letters make; and phonological awareness, or understanding how words break down into sounds, such as rhyming or segmenting syllables.

Parents completed surveys about how often they engaged in various literacy-related activities at home, including writing letters, reading books and using educational games or apps.

Key findings and implications

There were several key findings. Print-focused activities consistently predicted stronger early literacy skills in all children studied. Children who spent more time on literacy games scored lower on reading assessments across both groups. So heavier use of games was associated with worse literacy outcomes, regardless of a child’s developmental background.

But for the variable of shared book reading, it was only a significant predictor for children without speech and/or language impairments. So while the structure of the home literacy environment is similar for all children, there should be special attention when it comes to shared reading for those with disabilities.

The research challenges the assumption that more exposure to learning tools automatically means better results. Instead, it highlights the need for intentional, hands-on approaches. This doesn’t mean digital learning tools should be avoided; rather, they should be used more for supplemental learning rather than as a primary tool.

What parents should know about games

There are a few possible reasons why some games may not be helping. For example, certain games prioritize entertainment over education, employing flashy visuals and sounds that distract from the development of key skills.

For other games, even if high-quality, they lack personal, hands-on instruction, such as practicing writing or identifying real-world print — skills that are especially critical for children with speech and/or language challenges.

Teaching children early reading skills does not require expensive tools or programs. Everyday interactions with print learning opportunities are the most important. There are specific tips and actions that parents can take to encourage learning:

  • Spot letters together by finding letters on street signs, food packaging or menus.
  • Encourage writing and have your child write their name, draw letters or label pictures.
  • Make reading interactive by pointing to words, talking about letter sounds and asking questions while reading books.
  • Parents should be mindful of introducing games when children might be struggling. Thoughtfully integrate digital learning tools for supplemental learning.
  • Print-focused routines are especially important for children with learning impairments.

By Madeline Strauss

Read on MSUToday.

###

Michigan State University has been advancing the common good with uncommon will for 170 years. One of the world’s leading public research universities, MSU pushes the boundaries of discovery to make a better, safer, healthier world for all while providing life-changing opportunities to a diverse and inclusive academic community through more than 400 programs of study in 17 degree-granting colleges.

For MSU news on the web, go to MSUToday or x.com/MSUnews.

 

For professional fighters, childhood disadvantage linked to more brain changes later



American Academy of Neurology




Highlights:

  • The study included 100 professional athletes who participated in combat sports.
  • Growing up in under-resourced neighborhoods was linked to thinner areas of the brain—a possible early sign of neurodegeneration.
  • Athletes from highly disadvantaged neighborhoods had smaller brain volumes in areas important for movement and memory, including the thalamus, cerebellum and hippocampus.
  • This link remained even after accounting for factors such as race and ethnicity, income and number of fights.
  • The findings support a broader understanding of brain health—one that includes social and environmental influences, not just physical trauma.

For professional fighters, childhood disadvantage linked to more brain changes later

MINNEAPOLIS – Athletes who participate in combat sports like boxing and mixed martial arts and grow up in disadvantaged neighborhoods may be more likely to show signs of brain changes associated with neurodegeneration than athletes from affluent neighborhoods, according to a study published on August 13, 2025, in Neurology® Open Access, an official journal of the American Academy of Neurology.

The study does not prove that socioeconomic disadvantage causes more changes in the brain. It only shows an association.

“It is well-known that high-impact sports such as professional fighting are at a greater risk of repetitive head injuries,” said study author Brooke D. Conway Kleven, DPT, PhD, of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. “We found that socioeconomic status may influence how the brain responds to these repetitive impacts. Stressors related to income, employment, education and housing quality may compound the risks of repeated head trauma. Athletes from marginalized or under-resourced communities may face a heavier burden when it comes to brain health.”

The study included 100 professional combat sport athletes, 14% of whom were female and 43% of whom identified as Black, American Indian/Alaska Native, Asian, Pacific Islander or two or more races. All participants had a minimum of 10 professional fights and were currently active or recently retired from competition. They were followed an average of five years and 20% developed thinking and memory problems.

Each participant had a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) brain scan to assess brain structure. They also had annual check-ups to evaluate brain health.

Researchers looked at social factors that may impact health, including income, education and housing. To rank participants based on these factors, they used U.S. Census data and a measure called the Area Deprivation Index. Higher scores reflect greater disadvantage. Athletes were divided into three groups, those who grew up in neighborhoods with low, moderate or high disadvantage.

Researchers found that athletes from high-disadvantage neighborhoods had a thinner outer layer in certain areas of the brain, which can be an early sign of neurodegeneration. They also had smaller brain volumes in key areas: the thalamus was an average of 354 mm³ smaller and the cerebellar cortex was 2,478 mm³ smaller than in athletes from low-disadvantage neighborhoods, and the hippocampus volume was lower compared to those in moderately disadvantaged neighborhoods.

When researchers adjusted for high levels of a protein that is a hallmark of damage in the central nervous system, they found that volumes in the thalamus were about 60% lower in those from high-disadvantage neighborhoods than those in low-disadvantage neighborhoods.

“The findings support a broader understanding of brain health—one that considers not just training or fight history, but also the social and economic context in which people live,” Conway Kleven said. “Our study suggests that where someone grows up matters. Recognizing stressors can help inform more equitable approaches to protecting long-term brain health.”

A limitation of the study is that only athletes currently training or recently retired were included, not long-retired athletes, which could have led to a lower percentage of people with cognitive impairment.

Discover more about brain injury at BrainandLife.org, from the American Academy of Neurology. This resource also offers a magazine, podcast, and books that connect patients, caregivers and anyone interested in brain health with the most trusted information, straight from the world’s leading experts in brain health. Follow Brain & Life® on FacebookX, and Instagram.

The American Academy of Neurology is the leading voice in brain health. As the world’s largest association of neurologists and neuroscience professionals with more than 40,000 members, the AAN provides access to the latest news, science and research affecting neurology for patients, caregivers, physicians and professionals alike. The AAN’s mission is to enhance member career fulfillment and promote brain health for all. A neurologist is a doctor who specializes in the diagnosis, care and treatment of brain, spinal cord and nervous system diseases such as Alzheimer's disease, stroke, concussion, epilepsy, Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, headache and migraine.

Explore the latest in neurological disease and brain health, from the minds at the AAN at AAN.com or find us on FacebookXInstagramLinkedIn, and YouTube.

VACCINATIONS MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE 

Broad COVID-19 vaccination makes economic sense, especially for older adults, study finds



Vaccinating every person over 65 would actually save the U.S. money, while vaccinating all younger adults would be a reasonable investment


Michigan Medicine - University of Michigan




As the nation gears up for the rollout of an updated COVID-19 vaccine, a new study shows the economic benefits of continued broad vaccination in adults.

In fact, the country would ultimately save more money that it would spend on vaccinating every person over age 65 with a single dose of an updated mRNA vaccine against coronavirus, the study concludes.

That’s because of the power of the vaccine to prevent deaths, hospitalizations, short- and long-term illness and lost productivity such as lost workdays in this age group, the researchers report based on a computer model. The model focused on people without immunocompromising conditions or medications.

Meanwhile, in middle-aged adults from 50 to 64 years old, broad vaccination is a good economic investment, the study concludes. Even vaccinating healthy young adults age 18 to 49 would fall within accepted limits for cost-effectiveness under certain conditions.

The new study, published in JAMA Network Open, comes from a team led by a pair of University of Michigan researchers who have done many vaccine cost-effectiveness studies under contract with the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, or CDC. The paper includes multiple CDC researchers as co-authors.

Lisa Prosser, Ph.D., is the lead author of the new paper and co-leader with David Hutton. Ph.D. of the broader vaccine cost-effectiveness research effort. She is a professor of pediatrics in the U-M Medical School and of health management and policy at the U-M School of Public Health, where Hutton is also a professor.

“We show that a single dose of 2023-2024 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine averted substantial illness and death across age groups, and that this led to economically attractive results for both of the older age groups across wide variations in the parameters of the model,” said Prosser. “However, we also find that a second dose in non-immunocompromised adults under age 64 was not economically favorable, though a second dose in adults over age 65 was.”

She notes that second doses have been recommended for older adults and those of any age with certain conditions for both of the last two COVID-19 vaccination seasons.

The study did not include data from people under the age of 18, because of the lack of data.

In general, the study finds that broad vaccination could prevent 391 hospitalizations and 43 deaths from severe COVID-19 for every 100,000 people over age 65 vaccinated. For those age 18 to 49, those numbers would be lower, with 39 hospitalizations and 1 death prevented for every 100,000 vaccinated.

The number of cases of COVID-19, of any severity, that could be prevented through broad vaccination was about the same for all three age groups, between 7,600 and 8,900 for every 100,000 adults vaccinated.

Prosser notes that declining COVID hospitalization rates may contribute to less favorable economic outcomes in future analyses.

Current COVID-19 situation

CDC data shows that more than 47,000 Americans had COVID-19 listed on their death certificates in 2024, with two-thirds of them having COVID-19 listed as the underlying cause and 34% having it listed as a contributing cause. That is down sharply from the first years of the pandemic, and down substantially from 2023.

Although the vast majority of U.S. adults have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine since they became available in early 2021, the percentage receiving the updated vaccine in recent years has dropped markedly.

CDC data show that 28% of adults over age 65 taking part in traditional Medicare had received the 2024-2025 vaccine as of this past February. As of April 2025, 23% of adults of all ages told surveyors they had received the 2024-2025 vaccine.

Previous research and underlying model

Earlier this year, Prosser and colleagues published a paper in the journal Vaccine evaluating the cost-effectiveness of the national investment in testing, buying and delivering the first vaccines . In all, they show, this national vaccine strategy carried out in 2020 and 2021 more than paid for itself after just one year.

Even without counting lost productivity, the national COVID-19 vaccine effort saved money for most adult age groups purely by avoiding medical costs, the study concluded. Overall, among all adults over age 40, the nation saved more in avoided medical costs than it spent on the vaccine effort.

The U-M team has presented findings about the cost-effectiveness of several vaccines to meetings of Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Advisory Committee for Immunization Practices, which creates recommendations for vaccine use. 

The model used in all of the team’s studies includes everything from the cost of the vaccine itself, to home or lab tests for the virus, to the likelihood of suffering any level of COVD-19 illness or vaccine reaction, to the typical cost of receiving care at any level of illness, to the number of days of work lost for different levels of illness. The researchers included post-COVID conditions, also called Long COVID or PASC for Post-Acute Sequelae of COVID-19.

The model also incorporates data on actual rates and severity of illness, and death rates, for different age groups.

The model uses conservative estimates, so the size of the savings may actually be even larger than the studies report, Prosser notes. For instance, the model does not include the lost productivity of people who took time off work to care for a sick adult family member, patients’ out-of-pocket costs for treatment, or transportation to get to medical care.

Prosser notes that the current CDC recommendation is for everyone over the age of 6 months to get at least one dose of the current COVID-19, though the CDC’s recommendation for children without an immune-compromising condition changed this summer to include shared decisionmaking between the child’s parent/guardian and a health care professional.

For people who are age 65 and older, or immunocompromised because of a health condition or treatment, the CDC recommends a second dose of the current vaccine six months after the first.

Additional authors: In addition to Prosser and Hutton, the new paper’s authors are Angela M. Rose, M.P.H., Kerra Mercon, M.S., Cara B. Janusz, Ph.D. and Acham Gebremariam, M.S. of U-M’s Susan B. Meister Child Health Evaluation and Research Center; and Megan Wallace, Dr.P.H., Andrew J. Leidner, Ph.D.; Fangjun Zhou, Ph.D.; Ismael R. Ortega-Sanchez, Ph.D.; Danielle Moulia, M.P.H.; Ruth Link-Gelles, Ph.D., M.P.H.; Sharon Saydah, Ph.D., M.H.S.; Melisa Shah, M.D., M.P.H.; and Jamison Pike, Ph.D. from CDC.

The study was funded by a CDC grant to U-M (75D30122P15319).

Cost-Effectiveness of 2023-2024 COVID-19 Vaccination in US Adults, JAMA Network Opendoi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2025.23688

 

People who move to more walkable cities do, in fact, walk significantly more




University of Washington
Althoff 

image: 

This map shows changes in steps between cities of different Walk Scores: Seattle to San Francisco, Dallas to Chicago.

view more 

Credit: Althoff et al./Nature






Study after study shows that walking is very good for those who are able, and generally more is better. A 2023 study found that even 4,000 steps a day improves all-cause mortality risk. (The U.S average is 4,000 to 5,000.) For each 1,000 extra daily steps, risk decreased by 15%.

Walk Scores have been used since 2007 to quantify how quickly people can typically walk to amenities like grocery stores and schools in an area. Cities are assigned scores from 0 to 100; for instance, Seattle’s 74 means it’s “very walkable.” It may seem self-evident that in cities and towns with better scores people tend to walk more. But it’s surprisingly difficult to tease out the cause and effect: Do walkable cities prompt people to take more steps, or do people who want to walk tend to live in more pedestrian-friendly cities?

New research led by the University of Washington provides clear evidence that highly walkable areas lead to significantly more walking. Using data from the Argus step-tracking app, authors compared the steps per day of 5,424 people who moved one or more times among 1,609 cities in the United States. Across all relocations, when the Walk Score rose or fell more than 48 points, average steps increased or decreased by about 1,100 per day. But when people moved between similarly walkable cities, their steps stayed about the same. These findings held across people of different ages, genders and body mass indexes.

For instance, the study tracked 178 people who moved to New York City (Walk Score 89) from different cities with an average score of 48. This group’s average daily steps rose by 1,400 upon moving to New York, from 5,600 to 7,000. Moves from New York to less walkable cities showed the inverse: People averaged 1,400 fewer steps.

The authors published their findings Aug. 13 in Nature.

“Some of our prior work suggested that our physical, built environment makes a big difference in how much we move, but we couldn’t produce particularly strong evidence showing that was the case,” said lead author Tim Althoff, a UW associate professor in the Paul G. Allen School of Computer Science & Engineering. “The large data set we worked with for this new study gave us a unique opportunity to produce this strong, compelling evidence that our built environments do indeed causally impact how much we walk.”

Working with an anonymized data set from 2.1 million people who used the Argus app between 2013 and 2016, the team pulled a subset who had moved and stayed in their new location for at least three months. They normalized for demographics and changes in seasons. They also filtered out days with fewer than 500 steps or more than 50,000, as well as days around moves.

The greatest change in walking the study observed was in the moderate intensity range (100 to 130 steps per minute). Moves that increased Walk Scores more than 49 points were associated with twice as many subjects recording at least 150 minutes of aerobic activity per week, the recommended minimum.

Althoff stressed that while the study provides the strongest evidence to date, no data set is truly representative of the whole U.S. population. For instance, the subjects in this study had all downloaded a step-counting app, which can affect results.

“Our study shows that how much you walk is not just a question of motivation,” Althoff said. “There are many things that affect daily steps, and the built environment is clearly one of them. There's tremendous value to shared public infrastructure that can really make healthy behaviors like walking available to almost everybody, and it's worth investing in that infrastructure.”

Other co-authors on this paper include Boris Ivanovic of NVIDIA Research and Jennifer L. HicksScott L. DelpAbby C. King and Jure Leskovec of Stanford University.

This research was funded in part by the National Institutes of Health, the National Science Foundation and the Gates Foundation.

For more information, contact Althoff at althoff@cs.washington.edu.