Zahra Pazoki
Mohammad Taghi Kheirkhah
Shahriar Gharibzadeh2*- 1School of Behavioral Sciences and Mental Health, Iran University of Medical Science, Tehran, Iran
- 2Institute for Cognitive and Brain Sciences, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Cognitive training (CT) has emerged as a potential therapeutic approach for substance use disorders (SUD), aiming to restore cognitive impairments and potentially improve treatment outcomes. However, despite promising findings, the effectiveness of CT in real-life applications and its impact on SUD symptoms has remained unclear. This perspective article critically examines the existing evidence on CT for SUD and explores the challenges and gaps in implementing CT interventions. It emphasizes the need for clarity in expectations and decision-making from a public health standpoint, advocating for comprehensive studies that consider a broader range of SUD consequences and utilize measures that reflect patients’ actual experiences.
Introduction
Drug addiction, a leading risk factor for morbidity and mortality, presents significant challenges to global health. The treatment burden associated with this issue is substantial, and any efficient approach that can aid in its management is valuable. Neuropsychological interventions, including cognitive training (CT), are increasingly being recognized as effective methods for addressing cognitive impairments associated with substance use disorders (SUD) (1).
In recent decades, there has been increased attention to the cognitive aspect of drug addiction, both from the perspectives of the cognitive origins of substance use and the impact of substance use on cognitive functions (2). It is now widely recognized that cognitive impairments may occur as a result of SUD (3, 4). Moreover, pieces of research have demonstrated promising therapeutic effects on cognitive functions in patients with SUD (5).
CT interventions for SUD patients primarily take a restorative approach, utilizing repeated exercises. These interventions can be supplemented with compensatory strategies to improve working memory, executive functioning, and, in some cases, verbal learning, problem-solving, attention, and processing speed (6). It is believed that by improving higher order cognition, patients may gain better control over their consumption habits and become more actively engaged in their treatment process (7). The evidence indicating that individuals with SUD are at a heightened risk of cognitive impairments (8), and that cognitive impairments may predispose individuals to developing SUDs (9), underscores the importance of targeting cognitive impairments in intervention (10).
However, in some studies, the effectiveness of CT has been questioned, and evidence against being optimistic about it has been presented. For example, research has demonstrated that domain-specific training often fails to transfer to other cognitive functions (11) and has minimal impact on general cognition (12). Additionally, it has been suggested that the underlying mechanisms of CT suffer from a lack of clarity, and CT interventions may not necessarily target their intended objectives (13). Peckham (14) points out the reasons why CT may not be effective or transferable to everyday life. Accordingly, CT interventions fail to address individuals’ specific needs, do not align with the timing and context of symptoms experienced in real life, and overlook cultural and racial diversity.
Moreover, designing and developing interventions for SUD has always been challenging due to factors such as the diversity and complexity of SUDs (15), high relapse rates (16), high comorbidity (17), limited treatment availability (18), and individual differences in treatment response (19). These challenges, along with the limitations of CT interventions in transferring to real life, raise questions about what they offer.
This perspective article reviews the current understanding of CT within the context of SUD and raises questions regarding its impact on cognitive functions and substance use outcomes, as well as its potential applicability to real-life situations. Additionally, it emphasizes the significance of this issue for public health and outlines the way forward to achieve a more conclusive understanding.
Cognitive training for substance use disorders
The primary argument for the importance of focusing on CT interventions for SUD is that, given the association between SUD and cognitive impairments (20), which may persist even after recovering from SUD, responding to conventional treatments can become more challenging (21). These remaining impairments can also heighten the risk of relapse, diminish the quality of life, and negatively impact social functioning (22). It is hypothesized that akin to other conditions involving cognitive impairment, enhancing executive functions may lead to increased engagement in treatment, consequently reducing substance consumption (23). Based on this argument, some claim that managing cognitive deficits is an important gap in therapeutic efforts for SUD (9). Some studies have gone further and explicitly suggest that CT interventions can lead to a reduction in SUD symptoms (24). However, the long-term effects of these types of interventions on the everyday life performance of patients are still in an aura of uncertainty (25).
While a systematic review of the literature was beyond the scope of the present study, a search was conducted in bibliometric databases for studies on CT for SUD. Previous reviews were also explored to identify additional potential references. Most existing studies have employed a restorative approach, focusing on enhancing working memory and executive functions. Some have incorporated compensatory strategies in conjunction with cognitive training. Others have investigated the impact of training on outcomes related to substance use (e.g., days of use and abstinence, severity of SUD symptoms, treatment duration, drug urinalysis, etc.) (6, 26, 27). Our current understanding of CT for SUD suggests that interventions are often effective on exercised tasks and may also have effects on general cognition. They may also affect the outcomes related to substance use in some cases. However, the findings are mixed and heterogeneous (5, 28). The impact of CT on craving, relapse, and other outcomes such as family and social status, and quality of life has not been addressed much. Additionally, there is insufficient evidence regarding the effect of CT on urine drug tests. The ability to transfer changes to everyday life cannot be determined based on the current state of the art. Furthermore, there is a lack of evidence regarding the influence of demographic diversity and other potential moderators on the impact of CT in SUD. Previous review articles have not been able to provide a conclusive decision on the effectiveness of CT on substance use outcomes or recommend a standard protocol regarding the type, procedure, and duration of intervention for clinical practice (5).
Concerns regarding the empirical evidence
To reach a deeper understanding of what CT interventions truly offer us, it is essential to question them from various aspects. First, to what extent is it expected to observe effects on the primary outcomes (cognitive impairments) and what are the impacts on patients’ real-life cognition? Studies have demonstrated that CT can impact cognitive impairments, but there is limited evidence regarding its ability to transfer this effect to other cognitive domains (6, 29). A review conducted by Caballeria et al. identifies CT interventions with preliminary impacts on cognition and behavioral responses. However, it suggests that there is insufficient evidence to support their effectiveness in functional domains in real life (26). It must be noted that in the meantime, many published interventions have design flaws and shortcomings (i.e., small sample size, lack of result replication, low specificity of interventions, lack of assessor blinding, inadequate randomization procedures, failure to report dropouts, and moderate to high risk of bias) that prevent definitive conclusions regarding their effectiveness. Even though CT interventions may affect users’ cognitive performance on trained tasks, it is still unclear what effects this improvement will have on their cognitive performance in everyday life (27).
Second, to what extent can it be expected that CT interventions are effective on secondary outcomes (outcomes related to substance use)? The current evidence regarding the effect of CT on outcomes related to substance use includes mixed findings (28). In some studies, CT has demonstrated a reduction in consumption (30) and consumption-related problems (30), while in others, no difference was observed between the treatment and control groups (31, 32). Overall, the findings regarding the impact of CT on the severity of SUD symptoms and other substance use related outcomes are conflicting. It remains uncertain which changes can be expected from which CT protocol. Moreover, while certain cognitive impairments, like those in executive functions are often considered core to compulsive substance use, it is difficult to see how cognitive training and remediation could serve as treatments for SUD in and of themselves as is sometimes stated (1). Given the multifaceted and complex nature of addiction, it is still unclear how CT can affect various aspects of drug addiction, including its biological, psychological, and sociocultural determinants, and overcome their impacts in real-life settings.
Third, which mediator and moderator factors play an effective role in this relationship? For example, the role of individual differences in the relationship between CT and SUD has been less addressed. SUD is shown to have varying effects on different individuals (17). Lifestyle and health behaviors, such as nutritional habits, physical activity, and sleep routines, can significantly influence cognitive performance in everyday life (33, 34). It has also been observed that SUD and health behaviors are closely related (35–37). The effects that these variables can have on the association between CT and SUD are still unclear. Recent findings, however, underscore the significance of precision medicine for specific subgroups (38–41). In general, there is substantial heterogeneity among the findings of cognitive training trials in the population of patients with SUD (6).
Public health concerns
The expanding market for CT solutions in various neurological and psychiatric conditions (42), raises concerns about prioritizing product development and customer service over evidence-based treatment. On the other hand, neglecting intervention shortcomings or overestimating their potential may lead to inappropriate allocation of resources. This, in turn, can lead to a less effective overall response to related health issues and take away the opportunity from other potentially effective approaches. Particularly, in the context of substance use, the impact of resource misallocation on ensuing public health outcomes is substantial (43). Accordingly, if the basic questions about the effectiveness of CT interventions for SUD are not answered, it may lead to misunderstanding by public opinion.
By conducting more rigorous research and fostering transparency in the development and evaluation of CT interventions for SUD, stakeholders can work toward improving outcomes for individuals struggling with substance use and promoting more effective public health responses to this issue.
The way forward
Before a conclusion can be reached about the role of CT interventions in SUD, it is necessary to determine its limitations and to clarify the expectations that the health care service holds regarding its use. Given the case of our alignment with laboratory insights into improved cognitive performance, it remains to be determined whether this is something we can apply to patients in real-life settings. These interventions, in their optimal form, are intended to be used as adjunct treatments and do not offer a path toward alternative treatment for SUD. The benefits of these interventions across various populations are not clearly evidenced as well.
When implementing CT interventions, attention should be paid to factors that may mediate or moderate primary and secondary outcomes (i.e., cognitive performance and outcomes related to substance use either in laboratory or real-life settings). Individual differences should also be taken into account when evaluating cognitive functions and designing CT interventions. This can help explain the variability in treatment outcomes and allow for personalized interventions based on the patient’s specific needs. In this line, in the context of mental health and well-being, a recent meta-analysis using machine learning models has proposed moderators that can be used to determine which groups of people benefit most from which CT protocols (44). Conducting such studies in the field of substance use disorders could potentially yield significant benefits.
The lack of sufficient evidence of the impact of CT interventions on SUD, as much as it makes it difficult to reject the null hypothesis, also increases the doubts to confirm it. Conducting RCTs, field studies, and using registered datasets can contribute to a more definite conclusion of the effectiveness of CT on substance use in daily life. Needs assessment studies that address individual differences in the neuropsychopathology of SUD (e.g., genetic determinants, neurobiological systems, cognitive and personality profiles, ethnicity and culture, age, gender, habits, motivation, etc.) (19, 45) could also be helpful for this purpose. Additionally, if cognitive deficit management is believed to be a gap between the treatment of SUD and its effectiveness, we suggest that studies on the effectiveness of CT interventions consider the broader domains of the consequences of SUD (e.g., abstinence from drugs or alcohol, personal and social functioning, mental and physical health, and health risk behaviors) as secondary outcomes (46). Given the limited evidence of the effectiveness of CT interventions on cognitive performance and SUD symptom severity in real-life scenarios, it might be advantageous to employ measures that, along with self-reporting methods, reflect the desired outcomes in a manner close to patients’ actual experiences and away from deception (e.g., collateral Reports, clinician Ratings, implicit measures, etc.) (47, 48).
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/supplementary material, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Ethics statement
Ethical approval was not required for the study involving humans in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent to participate in this study was not required from the participants or the participants’ legal guardians/next of kin in accordance with the national legislation and the institutional requirements.
Author contributions
ZP: Conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – original draft. MK: Investigation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing. SG: Supervision, Writing – review & editing.
Funding
The author (s) declare that no financial support was received for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
References
1. Verdejo-Garcia, A, Rezapour, T, Giddens, E, Khojasteh Zonoozi, A, Rafei, P, Berry, J, et al. Cognitive training and remediation interventions for substance use disorders: a Delphi consensus study. Addiction. (2023) 118:935–51. doi: 10.1111/add.16109
3. Salmanzadeh, H, Ahmadi-Soleimani, SM, Pachenari, N, Azadi, M, Halliwell, RF, Rubino, T, et al. Adolescent drug exposure: a review of evidence for the development of persistent changes in brain function. Brain Res Bull. (2020) 156:105–17. doi: 10.1016/j.brainresbull.2020.01.007
4. Wang, G, Li, DY, Vance, DE, and Li, W. Alcohol use disorder as a risk factor for cognitive impairment. J Alzheimers Dis. (2023) 94:899–907. doi: 10.3233/JAD-230181
5. Caetano, T, Pinho, MS, Ramadas, E, Clara, C, Areosa, T, and Dixe, MA. Cognitive training effectiveness on memory, executive functioning, and processing speed in individuals with substance use disorders: a systematic review. Front Psychol. (2021) 12:730165. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.730165
6. Nardo, T, Batchelor, J, Berry, J, Francis, H, Jafar, D, and Borchard, T. Cognitive remediation as an adjunct treatment for substance use disorders: a systematic review. Neuropsychol Rev. (2022) 32:161–91. doi: 10.1007/s11065-021-09506-3
7. Verdejo-García, A, Alcázar-Córcoles, MA, and Albein-Urios, N. Neuropsychological interventions for decision-making in addiction: a systematic review. Neuropsychol Rev. (2019) 29:79–92. doi: 10.1007/s11065-018-9384-6
8. Hetland, J, Lundervold, AJ, and Erga, AH. Cognitive impairment as a predictor of long-term psychological distress in patients with polysubstance use disorders: a prospective longitudinal cohort study. BMC Psychiatry. (2024) 24:143. doi: 10.1186/s12888-024-05600-x
9. Ramey, T, and Regier, PS. Cognitive impairment in substance use disorders. CNS Spectr. (2019) 24:102–13. doi: 10.1017/S1092852918001426
10. Wiers, RW . Cognitive training in addiction: does it have clinical potential? Biol Psychiatry Cogn Neurosci Neuroimag. (2018) 3:101–2. doi: 10.1016/j.bpsc.2017.12.008
11. Simons, DJ, Boot, WR, Charness, N, Gathercole, SE, Chabris, CF, Hambrick, DZ, et al. Do “brain-training” programs work? Psychol Sci Public Interest. (2016) 17:103–86. doi: 10.1177/1529100616661983
12. Sala, G, and Gobet, F. Cognitive training does not enhance general cognition. Trends Cogn Sci. (2019) 23:9–20. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2018.10.004
13. Veling, H, Lawrence, NS, Chen, Z, van Koningsbruggen, GM, and Holland, RW. What is trained during food go/no-go training? A review focusing on mechanisms and a research agenda. Curr Addict Rep. (2017) 4:35–41. doi: 10.1007/s40429-017-0131-5
14. Peckham, AD . Why Don’t cognitive training programs transfer to real life?: three possible explanations and recommendations for future research. Behav Ther (N Y N Y). (2021) 44:357–60.
15. Silva, JP . Health services for substance use disorders: challenges and future perspectives. BMC Health Serv Res. (2023) 23:1–3. doi: 10.1186/S12913-023-10072-Y/PEER-REVIEW
16. Kabisa, E, Biracyaza, E, d’Amour, HJ, and Umubyeyi, A. Determinants and prevalence of relapse among patients with substance use disorders: case of Icyizere psychotherapeutic Centre. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. (2021) 16:13. doi: 10.1186/s13011-021-00347-0
17. Volkow, ND . Personalizing the treatment of substance use disorders. Am J Psychiatry. (2020) 177:113–6. doi: 10.1176/appi.ajp.2019.19121284
18. Kheirkhah, MT, Mokarrami, M, Kazemitabar, M, and Garcia, D. Inequalities in care for Iranian women suffering from the comorbidity of substance use and mental illness: the need for integrated treatment. Health Promot Perspect. (2023) 13:198–201. doi: 10.34172/hpp.2023.24
19. Xu, B, and LaBar, KS. Advances in understanding addiction treatment and recovery. Sci Adv. (2019) 5:eaaz6596. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.aaz6596
20. Bourgault, Z, Rubin-Kahana, DS, Hassan, AN, Sanches, M, and Le Foll, B. Multiple substance use disorders and self-reported cognitive function in U.S. adults: associations and sex-differences in a nationally representative sample. Front Psychol. (2022) 12:797578. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.797578
21. Bruijnen, CJWH, Dijkstra, BAG, Walvoort, SJW, Markus, W, Van Der Nagel, JEL, Kessels, RPC, et al. Prevalence of cognitive impairment in patients with substance use disorder. Drug Alcohol Rev. (2019) 38:435–42. doi: 10.1111/dar.12922
22. Sampedro-Piquero, P, Ladrón de Guevara-Miranda, D, Pavón, FJ, Serrano, A, Suárez, J, Rodríguez de Fonseca, F, et al. Neuroplastic and cognitive impairment in substance use disorders: a therapeutic potential of cognitive stimulation. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. (2019) 106:23–48. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2018.11.015
23. Manning, V, Verdejo-Garcia, A, and Lubman, DI. Neurocognitive impairment in addiction and opportunities for intervention. Curr Opin Behav Sci. (2017) 13:40–5. doi: 10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.10.003
24. Rezapour, T, Hatami, J, Farhoudian, A, Sofuoglu, M, Noroozi, A, Daneshmand, R, et al. Cognitive rehabilitation for individuals with opioid use disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Neuropsychol Rehabil. (2019) 29:1273–89. doi: 10.1080/09602011.2017.1391103
25. Willis, SL, Tennstedt, SL, Marsiske, M, Ball, K, Elias, J, Koepke, KM, et al. Long-term effects of cognitive training on everyday functional outcomes in older adults. JAMA. (2006) 296:2805–14. doi: 10.1001/jama.296.23.2805
26. Caballeria, E, Oliveras, C, Nuño, L, Balcells-Oliveró, M, Gual, A, and López-Pelayo, H. A systematic review of treatments for alcohol-related cognitive impairment: lessons from the past and gaps for future interventions. Psychol Med. (2020) 50:2113–27. doi: 10.1017/S0033291720002925
27. Nixon, SJ, and Lewis, B. Cognitive training as a component of treatment of alcohol use disorder: a review. Neuropsychology. (2019) 33:822–41. doi: 10.1037/neu0000575
28. Lechner, WV, Sidhu, NK, Kittaneh, AA, and Anand, A. Interventions with potential to target executive function deficits in addiction: current state of the literature. Curr Opin Psychol. (2019) 30:24–8. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.01.017
29. Bickel, WK, Moody, L, and Quisenberry, A. Computerized working-memory training as a candidate adjunctive treatment for addiction. Alcohol Res. (2014) 36:123–6.
30. Sweeney, MM, Rass, O, DiClemente, C, Schacht, RL, Vo, HT, Fishman, MJ, et al. Working memory training for adolescents with Cannabis use disorders: a randomized controlled trial. J Child Adolesc Subst Abuse. (2018) 27:211–26. doi: 10.1080/1067828X.2018.1451793
31. Khemiri, L, Brynte, C, Stunkel, A, Klingberg, T, and Jayaram-Lindström, N. Working memory training in alcohol use disorder: a randomized controlled trial. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. (2019) 43:135–46. doi: 10.1111/acer.13910
32. Wanmaker, S, Leijdesdorff, SMJ, Geraerts, E, van de Wetering, BJM, Renkema, PJ, and Franken, IHA. The efficacy of a working memory training in substance use patients: a randomized double-blind placebo-controlled clinical trial. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol. (2018) 40:473–86. doi: 10.1080/13803395.2017.1372367
33. Slutsky, AB, and Etnier, JL. Caloric restriction, physical activity, and cognitive performance: a review of evidence and a discussion of the potential mediators of BDNF and Trk B. Int J Sport Exerc Psychol. (2019) 17:89–105. doi: 10.1080/1612197X.2016.1223422
34. Haberstroh, C, Weider, S, Flemmen, G, Loe, H, Andersson, HW, Hallgren, M, et al. The effect of high-intensity interval training on cognitive function in patients with substance use disorder: Study protocol for a two-armed randomized controlled trial. Front Sports Act Living. (2022) 4:954561. doi: 10.3389/fspor.2022.954561
35. Naren, T, Cook, J, Armstrong, F, and Manger, S. Lifestyle interventions in the management of substance use disorder. Aust J Gen Pract. (2022) 51:560–4. doi: 10.31128/AJGP-02-22-6331
36. West, AB, Bittel, KM, Russell, MA, Evans, MB, Mama, SK, and Conroy, DE. A systematic review of physical activity, sedentary behavior, and substance use in adolescents and emerging adults. Transl Behav Med. (2020) 10:1155–67. doi: 10.1093/tbm/ibaa008
37. Welford, P, Gunillasdotter, V, Andreasson, S, Herring, MP, Vancampfort, D, and Hallgren, M. Sticking with it? Factors associated with exercise adherence in people with alcohol use disorder. Addict Behav. (2023) 144:107730. doi: 10.1016/j.addbeh.2023.107730
38. Sanger, N, Panesar, B, Rosic, T, Dennis, B, D’Elia, A, Hillmer, A, et al. The future of precision medicine in opioid use disorder: inclusion of patient-important outcomes in clinical trials. Brazilian J Psychiatry. (2021) 43:138–46. doi: 10.1590/1516-4446-2019-0734
39. Ragia, G, and Manolopoulos, VG. Personalized medicine of alcohol addiction: pharmacogenomics and beyond. Curr Pharm Biotechnol. (2017) 18:221–30. doi: 10.2174/1389201018666170224105025
40. Toups, K, Hathaway, A, Gordon, D, Chung, H, Raji, C, Boyd, A, et al. Precision medicine approach to Alzheimer’s disease: successful pilot project. J Alzheimers Dis. (2022) 88:1411–21. doi: 10.3233/JAD-215707
41. Joshi, YB, and Light, GA. Using EEG-guided basket and umbrella trials in psychiatry: a precision medicine approach for cognitive impairment in schizophrenia. Front Psychol. (2018) 9:554. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00554
42. Khaleghi, A, Aghaei, Z, and Mahdavi, MA. A gamification framework for cognitive assessment and cognitive training: qualitative Study. JMIR Serious Games. (2021) 9:e21900. doi: 10.2196/21900
43. Vigo, DV, Kestel, D, Pendakur, K, Thornicroft, G, and Atun, R. Disease burden and government spending on mental, neurological, and substance use disorders, and self-harm: cross-sectional, ecological study of health system response in the Americas. Lancet Public Health. (2019) 4:e89–96. doi: 10.1016/S2468-2667(18)30203-2
44. Shani, R, Tal, S, Derakshan, N, Cohen, N, Enock, PM, McNally, RJ, et al. Personalized cognitive training: protocol for individual-level meta-analysis implementing machine learning methods. J Psychiatr Res. (2021) 138:342–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2021.03.043
45. George, O, and Koob, GF. Individual differences in the neuropsychopathology of addiction. Dialogues Clin Neurosci. (2017) 19:217–29. doi: 10.31887/DCNS.2017.19.3/gkoob
46. Milosevic, A, Ahmed, AG, Adamson, D, Michel, SF, Rodrigues, NC, and Seto, MC. Evaluation of a substance use treatment program for forensic psychiatric inpatients. J Subst Use. (2018) 23:640–7. doi: 10.1080/14659891.2018.1489006
47. Desmarais, SL, Van Dorn, RA, Sellers, BG, Young, MS, and Swartz, MS. Accuracy of self-report, biological tests, collateral reports and clinician ratings in identifying substance use disorders among adults with schizophrenia. Psychol Addict Behav. (2013) 27:774–87. doi: 10.1037/a0031256
Keywords: cognitive training, substance use disorders, effectiveness, everyday life, precision medicine
Citation: Pazoki Z, Kheirkhah MT and Gharibzadeh S (2024) Cognitive training interventions for substance use disorders: what they really offer? Front. Public Health. 12:1388935. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2024.1388935
Edited by:
Barna Konkolÿ Thege, Waypoint Centre for Mental Health Care, CanadaReviewed by:
Laura Angioletti, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, ItalyKevin Butler, University of Lincoln, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2024 Pazoki, Kheirkhah and Gharibzadeh. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Shahriar Gharibzadeh, c19naGFyaWJ6YWRlaEBzYnUuYWMuaXI=