A roadmap to competitive preclinical packages

Nature Medicine, Published online: 17 April 2026; doi:10.1038/s41591-026-04345-2

Should researchers avoid translational research in animals in favor of human or AI models? We argue that this debate should focus not on comparing species but instead on how experimental systems can be combined to maximize mechanistic confidence, human relevance, and real-world decision-making value.

The case for fixing everything

The handsome new book Maintenance: Of Everything, Part One, by the tech industry legend Stewart Brand, promises to be the first in a series offering “a comprehensive overview of the civilizational importance of maintenance.” One of Brand’s several biographers described him as a mainstay of both counterculture and cyberculture, and with Maintenance, Brand wants us to understand that the upkeep and repair of tools and systems has profound impact on daily life. As he puts it, “Taking responsibility for maintaining something—whether a motorcycle, a monument, or our planet—can be a radical act.”

Radical how? This volume doesn’t say. In an outline for the overall work, Brand says his goal is to “end with the nature of maintainers and the honor owed them.”

The idea that maintainers are owed anything, much less honor, might surprise some readers. Actually, maintenance and repair have been hot topics in academia since the mid-2010s. I played some role in that movement as a cofounder of the Maintainers, a global, interdisciplinary network dedicated to the study of maintenance, repair, care, and all the work that goes into keeping the world going.

Brand is right, too, that maintainers haven’t gotten the laurels they deserve. Over the past few decades, scholars have shown that work from oiling tools to replacing worn parts to updating code bases all tends to be lower in status than “innovation.” Maintenance gets neglected in many organizational and social settings. (Just look at some American infrastructure!) And as the right-to-­repair movement has shown, companies in pursuit of greater profits have frequently locked us out of being able to do repairs or greatly reduced the maintainable life of their products. It’s hard to think of any other reason to put a computer in the door of a refrigerator.

Some of Brand’s earlier work helped inspire those insights. But his new book makes me think he doesn’t see things that way. For Brand, maintenance seems to be a solitary act, profound but more about personal success and fulfillment than tending to a shared world or making it better.


Born in 1938, Brand is 87 years old. A sense hangs over the book—with its battles against corrosion, rust, and decay, with its attempts to keep things going even as they inevitably falter—of someone looking over life and pondering its end. Maintenance: Of Everything connects to every stage of Brand’s life. It’s worth reviewing where it falls in that arc. Brand has always been interested in tools and fixing things, but rarely has he focused on the systems that need the most care. 

More than a half-century ago, Brand was a member of the Merry Pranksters, a countercultural, LSD-centered hippie collective famously led by Ken Kesey, the author of One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest. In 1966, Brand co-produced the Trips Festival, where bands like the Grateful Dead and Big Brother and the Holding Company performed for thousands amid psychedelic light shows.

Brand’s Whole Earth Catalog had a vision that might feel progressive, but its libertarian, rugged-individualist philosophy of remaking civilization alone stood in contrast to more collective social change movements.

In some ways, the Trips Festival set a paradigm for the rest of his life’s work. Brand’s biographers have described him as a network celebrity—someone who got ahead by bringing people together, building coalitions of influential figures who could boost his signal. As Kesey put it in 1980, “Stewart recognizes power. And cleaves to it.” 

Brand applied this network logic to the undertaking he will always be best remembered for: the Whole Earth Catalog. First published in 1968 and aimed at hippies and members of the nascent back-to-the-land movement, the publication had the motto “Access to tools.” Its pages were full of Quonset huts, geodesic domes, solar panels, well pumps, water filters, and other technologies for life off the grid. It was a vision that might feel progressive or left-leaning, but the libertarian, rugged-individualist philosophy of eschewing corrupt systems and remaking civilization alone stood in contrast to the more collective movements pushing for deep social change at the time—like civil rights, feminism, and environmentalism.

That vision also led straight to the empowerment that came with new digital tools, and to Silicon Valley. In 1985, Brand published the Whole Earth Software Catalog, the last of the series, and also cofounded the WELL—the Whole Earth ’Lectronic Link, a pioneering online community famous for, among other things, facilitating the trade of Grateful Dead bootlegs. He also wrote a hagiographic book about the MIT Media Lab, known for its corporate-sponsored research into new communications tech. “The Lab would cure the pathologies of technology not with economics or politics but with technology,” Brand wrote. Again, not collective action, not policymaking: tools. And Brand then cofounded the Global Business Network, a group of pricey consulting futurists that further connected him to MIT, Stanford, and the Valley. Brand had literally helped bring about the modern digital revolution.

His attention then turned toward its upkeep. Brand’s 1994 book, How Buildings Learn: What Happens After They’re Built, argued against high-modernist architectural ideas. Nearly all buildings eventually get remade, he argued, but he especially favored cheap, simple structures that inhabitants could easily retool to suit changing needs. In some ways, Brand was recapitulating the liberated—or libertarian—philosophy of the Whole Earth Catalog: People can remake their world, if they have access to tools. In a chapter titled “The Romance of Maintenance,” he asked readers to see the beauty, value, and occasional pleasures of fixer-uppers of all kinds.

This chapter was a touchstone for many of us in the academic subfield of maintenance studies. Researchers in disciplines like history, sociology, and anthropology, as well as artists and practitioners in fields like libraries, IT, and engineering, all started trying to understand the realities and, yes, romance of maintenance and repair. Brand joined and contributed to Listservs, attended conferences, chatted with intellectual leaders. So it’s a bit uncharitable when he writes that his new book is “the first to look at maintenance in general.” He knows better. The real question, though, is what his work has to teach us that others have not said before. In this first volume, the answer is unclear.


Maintenance: Of Everything, Part One is an odd book. If so much of Brand’s thinking has been about access to tools, he now asks, in a more extended way: How are our tools maintained? But where Brand began his career with a catalogue, in this volume we get … what? A digest? An almanac? An encyclopedia? Its form and riotous variety fit no genre easily. 

The book has two chapters. The first, “The Maintenance Race,” recounts the story of three men who took part in the Golden Globe, a round-the-world race for solo sailors held in 1968. Each of the sailors, Brand explains, had a different philosophy of maintenance. One neglected it and hoped for the best. He died. Another thought of and prepared for everything in advance, and while he didn’t win the race, he completed it and once held the record for the “world’s longest recorded nonstop solo sailing voyage.” The final sailor won and did so through heroic acts of perseverance; his style was “Whatever comes, deal with it,” Brand explains. Structured like a fairy tale and unremittingly romantic, the story—like most of the anecdotes in the book—focuses on the derring-do of vigorous white guys. The strategy is no secret. Brand’s outline explains: “Start with a dramatic contest of maintenance styles under life-critical conditions—a true story told as a fable.” This myth is meant to inspire. 

The second chapter, “Vehicles (and Weapons),” is over 150 pages long. It has five sections, multiple subsections, five subsections designated “digressions,” one called a “subdigression,” two “postscripts,” and several “footnotes” that are not footnotes in a formal sense but, rather, further addenda. At times, it all feels like notes for a future work. Brand makes no apology for the book’s woolliness. “All I can offer here,” he writes, “is to muse across a representative of maintenance domains and see what emerges.” Perhaps the most charitable reading of the potpourri is that it represents the return of a Merry Prankster, offering us a riotous varied light show. It’s a good book to leave on a table and occasionally open to a random page for entertainment. But it often seems as if it does not know what it wants to say or be. 

“Vehicles (and Weapons)” begins by paraphrasing two famous works of maintenance philosophy, Robert M. Pirsig’s Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance and Matthew B. Crawford’s Shop Class as Soulcraft. Maintenance involves both “problem finding” and “problem solving.” While much repair work is marked by anxiety, impatience, and boredom, it also offers positive values and outcomes. “Motorcycle maintainers take heart from what they repair for—the glory of the ride,” Brand writes. 

The beauty and triumph of cheapness is a running theme throughout the work, harking back to How Buildings Learn. Henry Ford’s Model T won out over early electric vehicles and hugely expensive luxury vehicles like Rolls-Royce’s Silver Ghost because it was cheap and easier to maintain. The three most popular cars in human history—the Ford Model T, the Volkswagen Bug, and the Lada “Classic” from Russia—all privileged cheapness, “retained their basic design for decades, and … invited repair by the owner.” Or, to be fair, maybe demanded it? For every hobbyist who delighted in being able to self-reliantly keep a VW running, there must have been thousands who appreciated how cheap it was and hated that it broke a lot. Brand never points to social research, like surveys, that might help us know people’s feelings on such matters.

Other sections recount how Americans created interchangeable parts (enabling not only cheap mass production but also easy maintenance), examine how maintenance works with assault rifles and in war, and track the history of technical manuals from the early modern period to the age of YouTube. These stories are solid, but they’re also well known to students of technology, and nearly all are recycled from the work of others, featuring many large block quotes. The volume breaks little new ground. 

Brand treats maintenance as an unalloyed good. But the field of maintenance studies has moved on, burrowing into the domain’s ironies, complexities, and difficulties. A simple example: In most cases, it is environmentally far better to retire and recycle an internal-combustion vehicle and buy an electric one than to keep the polluting beast going forever. Maintaining a gas-guzzler or a coal-­burning power plant isn’t a radical act but a regressive one. Also, maintenance can become a life-breaking burden on the poor, and it falls inequitably on the shoulders of women and people of color. Keeping existing systems going can be a way of avoiding tough, necessary change—like making technological systems more accessible for people with disabilities. In this volume, Brand is uninterested in such difficult trade-offs. He avoids any question of how politics shapes these issues, or how they shape politics.

This avoidance comes out most clearly in a section of “Vehicles (and Weapons)” that talks about Elon Musk—a character of “unique mastery,” Brand informs us. He tells us that Bill Gates once shorted Tesla’s stock, only to lose $1.5 billion. The lesson is clear: Elon won. 

In what political and social vision is money the best way to keep the score? Brand rightly points out that electric vehicles have fewer moving parts and, in that sense, are more maintainable than internal-combustion vehicles. He celebrates Musk most of all because his products “have all proven to be game changers in part because they combine ingenious design with surprisingly low cost.” Again, it’s Brand’s “cheap, available tools” hypothesis. But there’s a real superficiality and lack of follow-through in thinking here: Teslas remain luxury vehicles whose sales have slumped since federal tax subsidies disappeared. The company has faced several right-to-repair lawsuits; there’s even a law review article on the topic. Musk is in no sense a maintenance hero. Yet Brand writes that with his companies, “Musk may have done more practical world saving than any other business leader of his time.” By the time Brand was writing this book, the controversies surrounding Musk for at least flirting with antisemitism, racism, sexism, authoritarianism, and more were quite clear. About this, the book says not a word.

book cover
Maintenance: Of Everything, Part One
Stewart Brand
STRIPE PRESS, 2026

For sure, Brand needn’t agree with Musk’s critics, but failing to even broach the subject is tone deaf and out of touch. Others have argued that Silicon Valley’s “Move fast and break things” mentality undermines healthy maintenance. Brand doesn’t raise the idea—even to dismiss it. 

It could be that with Maintenance: Of Everything, Part One Brand is just getting going; that in subsequent volumes he’ll have something more coherent to say; that he’ll raise really hard questions and try to answer them. But given his track record, we might reasonably doubt it. Kesey said Brand cleaves to power; he certainly doesn’t question it. 

Lee Vinsel is an associate professor of science, technology, and society at Virginia Tech and host of Peoples & Things, a podcast about human life with technology.

STAT+: Cell therapy primed liver transplant patients to avoid organ rejection, small study shows

Immune tolerance has long been the holy grail in transplant medicine, a hoped-for end to the downsides of anti-rejection regimens for patients after they receive lifesaving organ transplants. A small, early-stage study now shows promise in taking cells from living donors — people giving a portion of their livers — to teach recipients’ immune systems to accept the foreign organs as their own and achieve the ultimate healthy outcome. 

Living donations take advantage of the liver’s ability to regenerate, meaning donors can part with a piece of their liver and later see it grow back. Recipients can regain enough liver function from the partial organs that also grow, replacing livers damaged by alcohol-associated liver disease, metabolic-associated liver disease, liver cancer, or other causes. Immunosuppression keeps their bodies from rejecting the new organs, but it also raises their vulnerability to infectious diseases and certain cancers. Serious side effects from the drugs include developing diabetes and kidney damage.

Cell therapy has been tried before to disarm the immune system’s attack by recruiting regulatory T immune cells taken from the donor. In the new study, whose results were published Friday in Nature Communications, different immune cells known as regulatory dendritic cells were obtained from donors’ white blood cells and generated in a lab. The idea behind both cell therapies is the same: to teach immune cells in the recipient’s body to treat the donated liver fragment as familiar tissue, not an invader be attacked.

Continue to STAT+ to read the full story…

Why having “humans in the loop” in an AI war is an illusion

The availability of artificial intelligence for use in warfare is at the center of a legal battle between Anthropic and the Pentagon. This debate has become urgent, with AI playing a bigger role than ever before in the current conflict with Iran. AI is no longer just helping humans analyze intelligence. It is now an active player—generating targets in real time, controlling and coordinating missile interceptions, and guiding lethal swarms of autonomous drones.

Most of the public conversation regarding the use of AI-driven autonomous lethal weapons centers on how much humans should remain “in the loop.” Under the Pentagon’s current guidelines, human oversight supposedly provides accountability, context, and nuance while reducing the risk of hacking.

AI systems are opaque “black boxes”

But the debate over “humans in the loop” is a comforting distraction. The immediate danger is not that machines will act without human oversight; it is that human overseers have no idea what the machines are actually “thinking.” The Pentagon’s guidelines are fundamentally flawed because they rest on the dangerous assumption that humans understand how AI systems work.

Having studied intentions in the human brain for decades and in AI systems more recently, I can attest that state-of-the-art AI systems are essentially “black boxes.” We know the inputs and outputs, but the artificial “brain” processing them remains opaque. Even their creators cannot fully interpret them or understand how they work. And when AIs do provide reasons, they are not always trustworthy.

The illusion of human oversight in autonomous systems

In the debate over human oversight, a fundamental question is going unasked: Can we understand what an AI system intends to do before it acts?

Imagine an autonomous drone tasked with destroying an enemy munitions factory. The automated command and control system determines that the optimal target is a munitions storage building. It reports a 92% probability of mission success because secondary explosions of the munitions in the building will thoroughly destroy the facility. A human operator reviews the legitimate military objective, sees the high success rate, and approves the strike.

But what the operator does not know is that the AI system’s calculation included a hidden factor: Beyond devastating the munitions factory, the secondary explosions would also severely damage a nearby children’s hospital. The emergency response would then focus on the hospital, ensuring the factory burns down. To the AI, maximizing disruption in this way meets its given objective. But to a human, it is potentially committing a war crime by violating the rules regarding civilian life. 

Keeping a human in the loop may not provide the safeguard people imagine, because the human cannot know the AI’s intention before it acts. Advanced AI systems do not simply execute instructions; they interpret them. If operators fail to define their objectives carefully enough—a highly likely scenario in high-pressure situations—the “black box” system could be doing exactly what it was told and still not acting as humans intended.

This “intention gap” between AI systems and human operators is precisely why we hesitate to deploy frontier black-box AI in civilian health care or air traffic control, and why its integration into the workplace remains fraught—yet we are rushing to deploy it on the battlefield.

To make matters worse, if one side in a conflict deploys fully autonomous weapons, which operate at machine speed and scale, the pressure to remain competitive would push the other side to rely on such weapons too. This means the use of increasingly autonomous—and opaque—AI decision-making in war is only likely to grow.

The solution: Advance the science of AI intentions

The science of AI must comprise both building highly capable AI technology and understanding how this technology works. Huge advances have been made in developing and building more capable models, driven by record investments—forecast by Gartner to grow to around $2.5 trillion in 2026 alone. In contrast, the investment in understanding how the technology works has been minuscule.

We need a massive paradigm shift. Engineers are building increasingly capable systems. But understanding how these systems work is not just an engineering problem—it requires an interdisciplinary effort. We must build the tools to characterize, measure, and intervene in the intentions of AI agents before they act. We need to map the internal pathways of the neural networks that drive these agents so that we can build a true causal understanding of their decision-making, moving beyond merely observing inputs and outputs. 

A promising way forward is to combine techniques from mechanistic interpretability (breaking neural networks down into human-understandable components) with insights, tools, and models from the neuroscience of intentions. Another idea is to develop transparent, interpretable “auditor” AIs designed to monitor the behavior and emergent goals of more capable black-box systems in real time.  

Developing a better understanding of how AI functions will enable us to rely on AI systems for mission-critical applications. It will also make it easier to build more efficient, more capable, and safer systems.

Colleagues and I are exploring how ideas from neuroscience, cognitive science, and philosophy—fields that study how intentions arise in human decision-making—might help us understand the intentions of artificial systems. We must prioritize these kinds of interdisciplinary efforts, including collaborations between academia, government, and industry.

However, we need more than just academic exploration. The tech industry—and the philanthropists funding AI alignment, which strives to encode human values and goals into these models—must direct substantial investments toward interdisciplinary interpretability research. Furthermore, as the Pentagon pursues increasingly autonomous systems, Congress must mandate rigorous testing of AI systems’ intentions, not just their performance.

Until we achieve that, human oversight over AI may be more illusion than safeguard.

Uri Maoz is a cognitive and computational neuroscientist specializing in how the brain transforms intentions into actions. A professor at Chapman University with appointments at UCLA and Caltech, he leads an interdisciplinary initiative focused on understanding and measuring intentions in artificial intelligence systems (ai-intentions.org).

Cerebral blood flow and functional connectivity immediate changes following intradermal acupuncture in major depressive disorder

BackgroundAcupuncture has been increasingly applied as an adjunctive treatment for major depressive disorder (MDD), yet its central neurobiological mechanisms remain insufficiently understood. Cerebral blood flow (CBF) and functional connectivity strength (FCS) provide complementary perspectives on regional metabolic activity and large-scale functional integration, and their coupling may reflect neurovascular coordination relevant to depression.MethodsTwenty patients with MDD and twenty matched healthy controls (HC) underwent resting-state MRI. Patients received intradermal acupuncture (IA) and were scanned before and immediately after stimulation, while healthy controls were scanned once. Voxel-wise analyses of CBF, FCS, and their ratio (CBF/FCS) were performed to characterize acupuncture-related changes in neurovascular coupling. Group comparisons and pre–post acupuncture effects were assessed at the whole gray matter level.ResultsAcupuncture induced significant alterations in CBF/FCS coupling across widespread brain regions, including the bilateral precuneus, postcentral gyrus, superior temporal pole, superior frontal gyrus, occipital cortex, and cerebellum. These regions are primarily involved in sensorimotor processing, cognitive control, and emotional regulation. Overall, IA was associated with an immediate increase in CBF/FCS coupling, suggesting enhanced coordination between cerebral perfusion and functional network integration.ConclusionThis study provides evidence that intradermal acupuncture modulates neurovascular coupling in patients with MDD, offering neuroimaging-based insights into its antidepressant mechanisms. The findings support the notion that acupuncture may facilitate more efficient brain function by optimizing the balance between neural activity and metabolic supply.

Effect of low-intensity focused ultrasound on hippocampus of alcohol addicted mice: a preliminary study

Alcohol addiction is a chronic relapsing brain disorder characterized by significant neurobiological changes, particularly within the hippocampus, which mediates emotional regulation and reward-seeking behavior. Previous studies have shown that alcohol-induced neuronal injury contributes to withdrawal-associated anxiety and persistent alcohol preference. This study investigated the therapeutic effects of low-intensity focused ultrasound (LIFU) on the hippocampus in a mouse model of alcohol addiction. Twenty-six male C57BL/6 mice were allocated to an alcohol-exposed group (n = 20) and a control group (n = 6). Following a 28-day modeling period, the alcohol group was randomly subdivided into a therapy group and a sham group. The therapy group received LIFU treatment, while the sham group underwent an identical procedure with the ultrasound transducer powered off. After seven days of treatment, the therapy group exhibited less severe anxiety symptoms upon alcohol withdrawal and a reduced preference for alcohol compared to the sham group. The brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) concentration was significantly lower in the therapy group than in the sham group, but did not differ significantly from the control group. Hippocampal HE staining revealed more pronounced degeneration and apoptosis of granule cells in the dentate gyrus (DG) region in the sham group relative to the therapy group. These preliminary findings suggest that LIFU may modulate alcohol addiction by mitigating hippocampal neuronal injury.

Interoceptive dysfunction and its neural correlates in schizophrenia: protocol for a cross-sectional multimodal MRI study

BackgroundInteroception—the perception and integration of internal bodily signals—is fundamental to emotion regulation, bodily self-awareness, and predictive coding. Emerging evidence suggests that interoceptive disturbances may contribute to core psychopathological features of schizophrenia. Our research group recently conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrating significant impairments in interoceptive accuracy and sensitivity among individuals with schizophrenia. However, the neural mechanisms underlying these deficits remain unclear.MethodsThis cross-sectional protocol will recruit 30 individuals with schizophrenia and 30 age- and sex-matched healthy controls. Participants will complete (1) behavioral interoceptive assessment using the heartbeat counting task; (2) subjective interoceptive questionnaires, including the Multidimensional Assessment of Interoceptive Awareness (MAIA) and the Body Perception Questionnaire (BPQ); (3) clinical symptom ratings (PANSS, HAM-A, HAM-D); and (4) cognitive testing (TMT, animal fluency, DSST). All participants will undergo multimodal MRI scanning, including structural T1-weighted imaging, resting-state fMRI, and diffusion tensor imaging. Neuroimaging data will be preprocessed and analyzed using DPABISurf, SPM12, and GRETNA. Expected Results: We anticipate that individuals with schizophrenia will show reduced interoceptive accuracy, altered subjective interoceptive awareness, and abnormal intrinsic neural activity and connectivity within interoception-related circuits, including the anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala, and thalamus. Structural abnormalities within thalamo-cortical pathways are also expected. Interoceptive deficits are hypothesized to correlate with symptom severity and cognitive performance.ConclusionsThis study will provide an integrated characterization of interoceptive dysfunction and its neural correlates in schizophrenia. Findings may advance understanding of bodily self-disturbance and emotional dysregulation and support the development of future interoception-focused therapeutic approaches.Clinical trial registrationhttps://www.chictr.org.cn/, identifier ChiCTR2500110551.

Anxiety among Chinese primary school teachers under the “double reduction” policy: prevalence and associated factors

ObjectivesThe implementation of the “Double Reduction” Policy in China has raised concerns about increased anxiety levels among primary school teachers. However, the prevalence of anxiety symptoms and the factors associated with them remain unclear. This study aims to investigate the prevalence and correlates of anxiety among primary school teachers under this policy.MethodsA cross-sectional survey was conducted from September to October 2022 among primary school teachers in 15 cities across China. Participants completed a series of questionnaires administered via WeChat to assess anxiety symptoms and potential related factors, including perceived stress, sociodemographic characteristics, and job-related variables. Anxiety and perceived stress were measured using the Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) and 10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10), respectively.ResultsOverall, 44.5% (1,423/3,199) of teachers reported at least mild anxiety symptoms. Among them, 56.43%, 25.30% and 18.27% had mild, moderate, and severe anxiety, respectively. In the final logistic regression model, five variables remained independently associated with anxiety: education level (master’s degree or above: OR = 2.781, 95% CI: 1.858–4.163), income dissatisfaction (OR = 1.487, 95% CI: 1.205–1.834), intermediate professional title (OR = 1.372, 95% CI: 1.084–1.738), younger age (OR = 0.979, 95% CI: 0.966–0.993), and perceived stress (OR = 1.489, 95% CI: 1.443–1.538).ConclusionAnxiety was prevalent among primary school teachers during the implementation of the “Double Reduction” Policy. Higher education level, income dissatisfaction, intermediate professional title, younger age, and elevated perceived stress were significant risk factors for anxiety. Therefore, interventions focusing on stress management and occupational support may help improve teachers’ mental well-being.

Two faces of police stress: Spanish validation of operational and organizational PSQ scales

IntroductionPolice officers face multiple psychosocial risks stemming from operational and organizational aspects of their work. The Police Stress Questionnaire (PSQ) includes operational (PSQ-Op) and organizational (PSQ-Org) versions to assess these stressors. This study aimed to validate both versions in a sample of Mossos d’Esquadra, examining their factorial structure, reliability, and convergent and discriminant validity.MethodsExploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted to examine the internal structure of the PSQ-Op and PSQ-Org. Internal consistency was evaluated using reliability indices. Convergent and discriminant validity were assessed through correlations with measures of anxiety, depression, and coping strategies.ResultsBoth PSQ-Op and PSQ-Org showed an essentially unidimensional structure, indicating that each scale measures a coherent latent construct. Operational and organizational stress remained distinct domains. Both scales exhibited high reliability and adequate psychometric properties. Subtle gender differences were noted in the perception of specific stressors.DiscussionThese findings support the validity and reliability of the PSQ-Op and PSQ-Org for assessing psychosocial risks among Spanish police officers. The scales can inform interventions targeting workplace stress prevention and the promotion of organizational well-being, emphasizing the need to address operational and organizational stressors separately.

Psychometric validation of the revised Chinese version of the Dimensional Anhedonia Rating Scale in psychiatric outpatients

ObjectiveTo refine the Chinese version of the Dimensional Anhedonia Rating Scale (DARS) and evaluate the psychometric properties of the Revised Chinese DARS (RC-DARS) in a large sample of first-visit psychiatric outpatients.MethodsThe study was conducted in two sequential phases at a specialized psychiatric hospital. In Phase I (n = 277), the existing Chinese DARS underwent semantic and cultural refinement in accordance with ISPOR and TRAPD guidelines, incorporating cognitive interviews and back-translation procedures. In Phase II (n = 788), the RC-DARS was administered alongside the Self-Rating Depression Scale (SDS), Self-Rating Anxiety Scale (SAS), Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI), and the MMPI Suicide Ideation Subscale (MMPI-SI). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses were conducted using common-factor extraction and the WLSMV estimator for ordinal indicators. Internal consistency, gender-based measurement invariance, and convergent validity were evaluated.ResultsExploratory analyses supported a four-factor domain structure. Confirmatory factor analysis demonstrated good model fit for the domain-based model (χ²/df = 3.81, CFI = 0.98, TLI = 0.97, RMSEA = 0.08, SRMR = 0.05), with substantially superior fit relative to an alternative reward-processing model. Internal consistency was excellent (Cronbach’s α = 0.95; McDonald’s ω = 0.96). Multi-group analyses supported configural, metric, and scalar invariance across gender (ΔCFI < 0.01). RC-DARS total scores were significantly negatively correlated with depressive symptoms (r = −0.443), anxiety (r = −0.317), sleep disturbance (r = −0.494), and suicide risk (r = −0.312) (all p <.001). Individuals with severe depressive symptoms exhibited significantly lower RC-DARS scores than those below the clinical threshold.ConclusionsThe RC-DARS demonstrates robust psychometric properties in a first-visit outpatient sample. The revision primarily enhances semantic precision and structural differentiation without materially altering score distributions. The scale may serve as a refined instrument for dimensional assessment of anhedonia in similar clinical contexts, pending longitudinal and multi-site validation.