Pubmed's a good place to start, tends to be what most academics use to base reivews on (from what I can tell); https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
We (well, David Baguley!) did an analysis of the number of published papers on tinnitus for our Annual Tinnitus Research Review in 2016;
View attachment 22589
Although volume doesn't necessarily equal quality of course.
I'd really recommend reading the BTA research reviews as good overviews of recent research by topic areas. They're fully referenced so you can find papers you're really interested in from there.
I've spent too long on pubmed . My curiosity with the Cambridge Core was whether it would give some insight into some brilliant individual's work. A way to target a potential candidate so to speak.
Might be easier to define the type of research do we NOT want to include. Since Danny was interested in Pharmacology can we eliminate research having to do with psychology, complimentary therapies like acupuncture, sound therapies, support mechanisms like phone apps, general wellness or other non-pharmacologic treatments like lasers or untrasound? We can ask for research that aligns with certain parts of the BTA Roadmap to a Cure.
TC
I applaud your effort @David and @Steve in wanting this topic to be an open discussion for all. For others who have rights as donators. Ones who may have knowledgeable thoughts that may include both the negative and positive aspects of complex medical and environment systematization. Otherwise discussions can appear that some have self special interests.Have to say it's the first time I've seen this sort of complex decision done via a forum, won't be easy to gain consensus and have one coherent direction. I applaud the effort though!
think we need to stick to the commitment made when asking for money, which is that the funds would be used to fund a cure.
That doesn't exclude non pharmacologic treatments. As long as it's something that can help cure tinnitus, it is in the scope.
In the future, this may path the way to more people believing that a large fund is possible with a community of this size. The parameters can always be changed to fit whatever one desires to achieve, because I now realise, that there are many people who don't think the money should be going towards curative research (I do, but it seems I'm in the minority).
It will create our own slice of science and generate more awareness by getting people talking.
When I heard Danny had died my intentions were to setup a fund that would objectively help the cause by making something happen in the real world.
I know. I was shamed and shunned by many in the tinnitus community. They said his death by suicide was being used as some sort of glorification and he was an awful person for doing what he did and what it did to me. The fund was at the time greatly supported by the ATA and we never mentioned suicide. It was simply named the FDL Tinnitus Assistance Program without expounding on the reasoning behind my efforts.but what I didn't expect is for people to get offended or upset.
Have to say it's the first time I've seen this sort of complex decision done via a forum, won't be easy to gain consensus and have one coherent direction. I applaud the effort though!
So... why not keep it simple: choose a well-suited candidate for a scholarship and move on.
Thinking of a student and how that may get the maximum benefit, something along the lines of the work that Will Sedley has done would be beneficial in my eyes.
I'm due to speak with him on Friday.
He's currently working on 3 projects to prove his theory and another on a potential biomarker for tinnitus.
He's a Dr at the Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University. Does research into brain mechanisms for tinnitus, looking at prediction in the brain and how that relates to tinnitus.@Steve suggested somewhere in here about looking to theories already in process. Something like that. I am not sure who Will Sedley is though. Is he a grad student?
Someone like this may be a good choice to consider.
Why are you trying so hard to post in these fundraiser threads? Barely any of your posts are directly about the matter at hand? To put it bluntly, what are you trying to say?Besides trying to give ideas with limitations to ones to discuss with your doctor, I post about what takes place in healthcare systems, care attitudes and research.
His work is on the prediction model, he believes it explains why many studies think they have identified a brain area for tinnitus, only for other studies to show a different brain area. To understand more, check out the papers at this link http://www.newcastletinnitus.org/previous-research.html
We did a podcast with Will. We were going to do a series but other things got in the way. I wonder if @Markku could post it or link to it here?
Hi TC,Before I invest time in reading these papers, can you give me a little background? Is Dr. Sedley using Prediction Modeling as in a building a mathematical model that can predict outcomes?
That sounds a lot like the basis of the neuromodulation devices that are being worked on at the moment.Hi TC,
It's based on the brain predicting things, I probably can't do it justice with my lay explanation but here goes..
The theory goes that the brain is always making predictions of what is going to happen, based on experience and learning. This helps us in daily life. When it learns something new it updates the model so that it can predict future events better, and likewise where there are gaps it makes predictions to fill these in based on previous experience and input.
In the case of tinnitus the theory is that there is an event that causes the tinnitus to be heard (or series of events). Once it is heard the brain at some point learns to predict the signal - when it becomes chronic - and we keep hearing it even if the initial causation is removed.
This quite neatly explains why those of us with certain personality types or traits, bordering on obsessive, seem most likely to have chronic tinnitus. We actively reinforce the prediction with our behaviour patterns.
To treat tinnitus based on this model we have to find some way of interrupting the prediction and resetting the brain, making it unlearn the phantom signal of tinnitus.
They work on a slightly different principle, although I don't know the particular techniques of newer devices. The main thing of something like ACRN is that it is focused on a particular tone (or tonotopic area of the brain) so recommended only for tonal tinnitus, with a focus on the most dominant tone. A treatment using the prediction model could theoretically work for any type of tinnitus as it works on the perception of the tinnitus signal rather than of a particular type of tinnitus.That sounds a lot like the basis of the neuromodulation devices that are being worked on at the moment.