Feedback from participants at Vas-Cog 2003

All participants at Vas-Cog 2003 were asked to give their views regarding the meeting, both positive and negative, to improve future Vas-Cog meetings. Their comments forms a picture of their impressions during the meeting. Here we present all comments given.



Discussed it afterwards with many of my colleagues I feel this has been the best congress I have ever attended and participated in. I hope you can take some time rest now; you certainly deserve it.

I would like to express my appreciation for a profound conference and the fun! Thank you both very much for making the 1st Vas-Cog conference a great success. I now only hope that you can balance the books. Vladimir and I will work on the report. It was a pleasure working with you and being in Gothenburg. Greetings from a sunny day in Cape Town (although it was cold and rainy yesterday!).

I have made a dithyrambic report to XXX (who was somewhere else in the World). Hope you can have some rest, (even for the attendees it was a tiring meeting!) Again, I was totally satisfied with the meeting and if the future meetings are as good as this first one, it will be great. I appreciated that there were no (almost no) parallel sessions (for the only one, I had to go from one room to another and it was not fun). I think that short communications are good and finally I was not too much frustrated to have only 5 minutes to present. You may avoid all introduction, context, and some part of recurrent methodology that this audience knows perfectly well. I think you gave the invited speakers the instruction to be provocative or at least to say frankly what their opinion is, even if they cannot yet completely demonstrate it. It was very good. I enjoyed a lot the debate "the Jonnhy's" against Ingmar and Leonor animated by Raj.It was a pleasant way to recall scientific evidence and to go further on the reflexion on the interpretation of all the data. On the other hand, the days were very full and dense. I almost did not see the day light and it was a bit tiring. No time to have a short work meeting with a group of people (or to finish an urgent work you brought with you) . For example it was finally impossible for the student to meet during the meeting. Maybe an end at 6 pm (including the symposium) or a beginning at 9 or 9:30 am some days would give a breath of air (unless I am the only one always behind schedule..). It is NOT possible to make the meeting longer (more days) . I think that maybe we will have to make some choices and not to give the same amound of time for all the topics (any important they can be) and of course to be careful that a topic for which less time had been given will have more time the meeting after. It was very good to have oral presentation of all the posters. A first experience for many students and the chairpersons were very good. Unfortunately, there were not enough room and the acoustics were bad (difficult for not native speakers of English). (whereas it was excellent in the amphitheater). A small improvement can be done on this. People were kind and courteaous, even the "elephants" ! You certainly set the tone. Thank you! I think that's all that come to my mind, so far, a few days after the event.

Congratulations on a very pleasant and well run meeting. Thanks for the great amount of effort and time.

I would like to congratulate you both on your superb organization of the congress in Goteborg last week. The meeting itself was terrific and helped to clarify many concepts regarding the role of vascular factors in dementia. In addition, the beautiful venue, the very efficient congress team, and most of all your wonderful hospitality made this congress especially memorable. Thank you again for including me and I hope that in the aftermath of the meeting you are finding some time to relax and enjoy this great success. Anders: I am embarassed that I fail to remember the name of your nurse coordinator who met my wife and me at the airport on our arrival in Goteborg. She was unfailingly gracious throughout the congress and was particularly kind to us. Please extend to her our warm greetings and appreciation.

Regarding the VAS-COG 2003: I enjoyed the meeting and thought it was very well-done and well-organized. I liked the social events (though: "Tacos" in Sweden? Please let's have Italian food in Florence; also, traditional rather than "Americanized" entertainment would be preferred). The debates were excellent, and the poster discussions were a good idea. Two complaints: some of the presenters who had only 10 minutes seemed to stuff a much longer talk into that time (e.g., 20-30 slides), and it was difficult to understand the data slides that were only shown for a few seconds (and often without much clarity about the data shown, e.g., x and y axis titles, slide titles...); perhaps presenters need some reminders about these communication issues (such as slide limit) next time; or, fewer & longer talks? Some of the talks seemed more appropriate as posters. Second complaint was that the poster presentations were very hard to hear, partly b/c of the set-up. I think you are aware of this problem already; I'd like to add that presenters should be reminded to speak up (or given microphones?). Thanks again for putting on such an excellent meeting. Florence is a great location for 2005.

First of all, let me thank you and everyone else for organizing and hosting the meeting. It was truly wonderful. There are only two things that I would like to see: 1) there was an attempt to give the two sides of the story on several conflicting issues, such as hyperlipidemia and hypertension as related to AD. I would have liked to see some type of consensus statement on where the evidence is and where to go even if the statement reflected continuing uncertainty. For example, some investigators actually question the biologic plausibility of the lipid-AD hypothesis, and the trial data is negative (with its limitations). I would have liked to see a consensus opinion combining different levels of evidence (Epi, laboratory, clinical) on whether this is an area that is worth pursuing. I understand that this may be delicate at times. 2) I am a general internist working in a neuropsychiatric environment. The general practitioner, whatever its specialty, is and will be the front line in the prevention and treatment of the disorders we investigate. I would like for the society to have some liaison with general practitioners, for education, dissemination of information, etc. Most general practitioners have no idea of the implications of common medical disorders in terms of cognitive and behavioral issues, let alone be able to recognize and evaluate specific impairments. I volunteer for this since I am a general internist. I would like to see research in our area integrated into the general practice environment. It is a privilege to be a member of the society along with such accomplished and interesting individuals. Thanks so much for the meeting. Count with me for anything related to the society and I hope we keep in touch and perhaps collaborate in the future.

Overall: nice Detailed: - nice balance of participants from all sides of the ocean(s). - 500 participants is a proper size. - lecture hall was too big (not intimate). - too often opinion based presentations: we need data as the basis for discussion! - paralel sessions should be forbidden! - four days is too long.

The Congress was excellent in all respects (organization, presentations, social events, panel discussions, poster sessions, even weather). In particular (in contrast to other meetings I attained) it was a very good idea to have round tables which enabled brief presentations and discussions around the posters. This is something to be further developed.

Hi - Thanks for an excellent conference! I thought it was absolutely outstanding. The best aspects were the large number of high quality research presentations and the fact that almost all of the top researchers in this field were in attendance. The organization, hotel accommodations and audio/visual support were also excellent. The only thing I did not like was the fact that the roundtable discussions were somewhat difficult to participate in, due to the fact that there were large numbers of people present and it sometimes became difficult to hear one another. However, I do think that discussing each poster is important and I'm not sure how I would solve the problem I just mentioned. Thanks again for everything. Also, can you please email me information on how to become a member of VAS-COG?

I very much liked the format of the meeting. Two suggestions: 1) Keep the poster round table discussions. It was at times difficult to hear what was going on. But, I am sure this was specific to that conference hall. 2) Divide time for questions on oral presentations into two: a) time after each oral presentation for questions (three?) relating to the research methods or results ONLY. b) time at the end of a section for questions to all the speakers. The moderator could ask for certain questions to be held over from a) to b). The social events were very nice and worthwhile.

Thanks so much for helping out in orgainising the conference. I learnt a lot from the lectures and poster sessions. It has broadened and sharpened my perspective in vascular cognitive impairment. It has also stimulated new research ideas for me. I assured you that your labor is not in vain.

Some comments are as follow: Good points: 1 opportunity to share in the poster session under the leading of well known experts 2 debate sessions on controversial issues, e.g. is AD a vascular disease? 3 the few opening talks on the overview of vascog on day 1 were particularly good 4. the calibre of most of the invited speakers are excellent 5. the venue / meeting hall was very comfortable 6. I prefer the many short talks rather than few long talks 7. as a clinical neurologist, the balance between clinical and basic materials are appropriate Other comments: 1 a bit too much talking on "vascular factors", some are overlap 2 having workshops on the basics of assessing the cognition of a patient with vascular cognitive impairment in a clinic setting; basics of reading MRI or CT for a non-radiologist Thanks once again for your wonderful work. And I hope to meet once again in Florence 2 years later.

Greetings, I appreciate the fact that you are inviting feedback. It is rare, and a good idea. Comments are interleaved below. Did you like or dislike the format and the content? I liked the fact that this was a relatively small and focused meeting. I know that there is a tension between breadth (esp. wanting to reach out to colleagues in related fields) and focus. One purpose that this meeting fulfills is the need for those scientists who are really interested in vascular factors in cognition and behavior to meet and discuss with each other. If it widens too much this will be lost. You will need to run concurrent sessions and then the degree of interchange may actually go down as people begin to select sessions most closely alligned to their own research interests. In the future I'd suggest pretty much restricting talks to data-based talks. Perhaps you may want to attach some CME teaching-type talks or courses, perhaps on a day before the congress itself to provide overviews. Social events? Harbor party was excellent, really fun. Opening night reception was very nice as well. Panel discussions? These generally seemed to evolve to be rather traditional question and answer sessions following a series of talks. There's nothing wrong with that, except that they were rather long and may be were not worth the amount of time devoted. Poster sessions? I liked the idea of the round-table sessions, but as they actually worked out I felt that there was less rather than more discussion around the posters. The traditional way of having a period of time where the author stands by the poster and discusses it with those most interested seems more interactive. Debates? good. Stimulating and interesting. 10 minute talks? 5 and 10 minute talks are too short. People inevitably cover too much ground and it's very hard to convey or to track the details of what they are presenting. Other things? The mechanics of registration and such seemed very well done.

it was a pleasure to attend the meeting. a point of critique: the poster sessions were badly organized, i think. there was too much noise in the hall and therefore presenters could not be understood. moreover, there were no sessions in which all presenters just had to stand beside their poster and more individual discussions could have taken place.

Dear Executive Committee, I really enjoyed VAS-COG 2003 and found the whole conference to be positive and well-organised. I liked the 10 minute presentation format with questions at the end of the session, particularly because they were organised into themes. With questions at the end of each talk it disrupts the flow and chairs/ audience feel obliged to ask questions even when not needed, so the VASCOG way was much better! I was most impressed with the poster sessions though - the round tables are an excellent idea and ensure that you have an interested audience. My only criticism is that it was difficult to hear at times because of the general noise of lunch chatter, but also because nearby sessions caused audiences to clash. I've often found that poster sessions are viewed as second-best but at VASCOG I got more out of the sessions than I think I would have if I had a platform presentation - I made some very useful contacts for future work. Overall excellent! The freebies provided by the drug companies were also very welcome - I'm not sure what feedback they usually get, but I much prefer the availability of ice-cream, cappucino, wine etc to free pens or mousemats! I'm much more likely to chat about the relative merits of their compounds if my stomach is happy! The social programme was also well organised and varied with a good mix of the 'grand' (town hall reception) and the 'down-to-earth' (pub night at Aveny followed by clubbing for some of us!). I hope the hostesses were well rewarded as they appeared to be working 24 hours a day with social and registration duties! I'd also like to thank the Committee for providing scholarships to allow young researchers to attend. It was by far the most informative conference I've attended and also the most enjoyable. I sincerely hope I'll be able to attend in 2005!

The meeting was excellent. I know you will say that it was a collaborative effort, and you and Anders did a great job of involving us all, but at the end of the day you both organised an absolutely first class meeting. What an act to follow! The short presentation format was good. I think a few questions after each talk useful, so either 4 x 10 mins talks then 15 mins discussion or 10+5. Waiting all moring till the end was too much. Would suggest a few people have 25 mins + 5 for questions for plenaries, maybe 2-3 a day. Debates excellent and stimulating. How about "Late life depression is a vascular depression" for the next meeting, very contoversial! I'd like more on non-cognitive of ocurse, which reflects my bias. I also think some parallel sessions OK but not too many. Meeting should end Fri or Sat am at latest, not run into Sunday (ideally end Fri). Posters worked well despite some people's comments, though better geography (posters grouped round semicircles etc) would be better. These are my thoughts for now, please let me know if I can help further.

I thought that the meeting was a smashing success. Great planning on the part of Ingmar and Anders. The logistics went very smoothly. I really enjoyed the debates and thought that the posters were well attended, had great faculty (moderator) input, and were a very nice touch. I also like the format of short talks with plenty of time for discussion. Here are areas that might be improved upon: 1. There was some redundancy; 2. The meeting went a bit too long; and 3. Additional topics could be added (e.g., genetics) and the first session on CADASIL, an important one, was missed by many of us. Terrific meeting overall. I thought that it got us off on the correct footing. I like Prof Hachinski's idea about organizing sessions around working group activities.

I enjoyed attending VAS-COG very much and congratulate you and the organizing committee for a well organized and stimulating convention. Some "critiques" that come to mind after discussions with other participants follow: - The abstract book was well organized. However, more detailed handouts of presentations (especially those synthesizing a concept or introducing an important notion) would have been greatly appreciated. - The "round table" idea for poster presentations is a great idea. However, there were often too many people in each group to be able to participate fully in the discussions. One suggestion would be to have the discussions in separate rooms after the poster presentations. Thank you again for a great convention, and I hope to see you again in Florence

Thank you for the opportunity of providing feedback on the conference. I found it very enjoyable. Aspects I particularly enjoyed - 1. Interdisciplinary perspective 2. Debates 3. Frank acceptance of uncertainty 4. Meeting rooms 5. Expertise/ quality of the vast majority of speakers 6. The "updates" (e.g., CHF, atherosclerosis) Things I'd ask the organizers to reconsider would be - 1. Timing of the meeting (late August isn't a good time for those of us with University commitments in Canada) 2. Passive (from the perspective of the audience) format for most of the sessions 3. The potential loss of an opportunity to harness the collective wisdom of those attending to, for example, develop (or respond to) new criteria for VaD 4. Short duration for a number of the presentations (10 minutes is very short - nearly impossible to convey complex material) 5. Duration of the meeting - I think it was a day too long 6. I would advise the organizers to make the International Society more open - for example, an effort could of been made to actively recruit new members; as a minimum brochures/ information pamphlets should of been available

Dear Sir/Miss, Herewith I send you my comments on the VASCOG2003 meeting. In general the format of the meeting was very pleasant: especially the lack of parallel sessions, and the multitude of discussions served me very well (including both the round table discussions, and the overall discussions on certain topics in the conference room). I would also give you some ideas which might be of benefit for the next VASCOG meeting. First, the number of junior researchers presenting their work orally was quite low, perhaps this could be given more attention the next meeting. Second, it was sometimes almost impossible to hear the comments made during the round table sessions, since the room was quite noisy (due to both airconditioning and people talking during lunch or other round tables). Perhaps these sessions could be organized in a quiter environment next time. To conclude with a positive remark; especially the discussions and remarks of well-known researchers were very valuable to me.

Thank you for your request. In general I can say that the congress war absolutely well organised. The speaker and also the presentations were based on a top level and also the programmes and topics were well choosen. Please keep that level and I am convinced that this congress will have a big and successful chance to become a top congress in Europe

Some of the 5 and 10 minutes talk were too alike - difficult to account for in advance though. Debate was refreshing and the best part of the program! Long discussions with the panel and audience is not so fruitful. n a whole a I think VasCog was more stimalating and "successful" (not in the common meaning since it is the epitet of every conference) than other meetings normally are. est wishes for Florence

Iliked the overall format! The debates had been excellent.

The vascog 2003 was very good organised. The congress hall was a little bit to big. The plenary sessions were very good, and I hope that the next congress all sessions are plenary. The social program was nice, evenso the dancing afterwards. Gotenborg is a nice city, clean and everybody is perfectly dressed. The hotel accomodation was alright and it was pleasant nearby the congress center. Thank you for being our host, till next year,

I could not say bye bye directly since I had to go back earlier afetr my talk because of a local emergency here. But what I saw was excellent , which was confirmed by the two collaborators from lausanne who stayed longer. Congratulations to you, Anders, and you colleagues. Perhaps a problem was that the dementia aspects were in fine a bit redundant , with several repetitions, and this was at the expense of the absence of other vascular cognitive topics, such as cognition and behavior in acute stroke and in late phases after stroke. This was also correlated with the low attendance of stroke experts, overall. Perhaps the group wishes just to become another dementia society, but I had not understood that form the beginning or worked myself with that perspective in mind. Probably this should be addressed by the new committee. On any case, enjoy you well deserved rest, if any, and keep in touch.

Dear sirs I am pleased to say that I have very few comments on the VAS-COG 2003 conference. I think it was both very informative and educational. However, there are two points I want to mention. 1) The structure of the poster presentations was excellent, and demonstrated clearly that such a presentation does not have to be a passive event. To enable the presenter to describe his/her study, and to allow informal discussions 'on the floor' to take place, was simply excellent. 2) As a PhD student entering the field of research into vascular aetiology of brain disorders, I must say that more should have been done to bring students and experienced researchers together. E.g. doctoral workshops is an option in which this integration of newcomers to the field could take place. I simply do not know how many research postgraduates attended VAS-COG 2003, but there is a difference in terms of knowledge, experience etc. between students and recently graduated researchers, who may have 2-3 years of experience. In order to cater for the 'new blood', perhaps at the next VAS-COG conference, research students could be brought together in a workshop, where they get the opportunity to meet each other, engage with experienced researchers and get valuable comments on anything they present at the conference. Thank you very much and all the best with the planning of VAS-COG 2005.

I am an ex-academic, now full time clinician trying to develop comprehensive geriatric services in the community. As part of this, I run a dementia clinic/pathway and thus my interest in VASCOG. I found the format effective if sometimes a bit repetative. For interaction with the experts, I would rate it very good. What I would like to see in the future is more interest in application. Preventing and treating dementia is becoming an increasingly complicated business, difficult for the expert and bewildering for the family physician. We need to have more discussion about models for applying the research findings. For example, the talk about the Swedish National Registry for Diabetes was pertinent. Thank you for a great meeting,

Excellent job on launching the Vas-Cog ship. The following are comments about the organization of the meeting and the Society. Meeting: - The travel awards for young investigators are essential, keep them up. - Each talk should include relevant disclosures about possible conflicts of interest. - The depression session went well. Psychiatric and cardiac drug companies are potential sponsors of future meetings. - Our meeting should offer CME credits. - The program was excellent but a little over full. Keep the short presentation format but cut down the number of presentations. Allow for 2-3 questions (2-3 minutes) after each presentation. - The program should include some time for work groups to meet and time to see the city. - The poster discussion format was great but we need to improve the logistics so people can hear the presenter. Arrange the posters to be discussed together into a semi-circle and provide a low mike and a stand for the presenter and have simultaneous discussions separated in different areas of the poster hall. Move lunch a little further from the poster area to cut down on noise. - Make sure people know about the satellite programs. I regret missing the CADASIL session. CADASIL is an important model for Vas-Cog and should be integrated into the program. - One of our goals is to disseminate information. The abstracts should be published in a high quality journal and we should publish the proceedings. Each session chair could write a short summary of the highlights of their session and we could include other important highlights from the meeting, such as Vladimir's closing address. Society: - Change the name from Chairman to President. - Our meeting structure and inter-meeting activity should carry out the goals of Vas-Cog to advance the understanding of vascular factors underlying cognitive and behavioral disorders, provide a integrative model to promote healthy brain aging, train new investigators and educate the public. The meetings should include a balance of educational sessions, presentations of new research, meetings of working groups and task forces, public education and advocacy and opportunities for socializing and networking. - Our website could be a wonderful avenue for communication. - Vas-Cog program staff will need to grow in proportion to the goals of our mission. Thanks again for all your fine work,

Again, thank you for all of your work to make this a successful meeting. In general, I think there were several strengths: The main people in the respective fields were there There were very few concurrent sessions There was adequate time for questions and discussion Some general weaknesses: While the format of the poster session presentations was excellent, the noise made it difficult to hear the presentation. I'd suggest separating the posters into groups and sprinkling them around the room, with the industry booths in the middle. 10 minutes is not long enough for presentations - probably better to have major speakers talking for 20 minutes and save the 10 minutes talks for posters. Comments on the science: There was much more emphasis on cognition that on behavioral aspects of CVD. That is probably as it should be, but for those of us interested in vascular depression, the challenge over time will be to make sure that this doesn't become a meeting where mood is considered an afterthought. One of the things we emphasized in the talks is for mood disorder to be better characterized in dementia studies, and if we continue to see mood symptoms presented only as self-report, then that may end up being demoralizing. In addition, if mood disorder ends up being a concurrent session, that will send a message that it is perceived as less important. Don't get me wrong - I was thrilled to be part of this and very grateful that an entire morning was devoted to mood disoder, vascular depression in particular. However, as we grow, there may be a temptation to start splitting off intobvarious camps, and for me, that would be a shame. At the next meeting there should definitely be a series of talks on apathy, a topic that crosses neurology, neuropsychology and psychiatry. There should also be a series of topics on executive function, as that topic affects research in neurology, neuropsychology and geriatric psychiatry as well. Specifically, it would help to try to come to some consensus about frontal function batteries so that they can be used across studies. It was a shame that Dr. Royall couldn't be there! Finally, I would be delighted to be on the Program Committee for Mood Disorders. I have a lot of contacts in the American Assn for Geriatric Psychiatry, so could encourage colleagues there to submit abstracts and plan to be there. Again, thank you very much for all of your work. I found the meeting very productive and Goteborg a wonderful city.

I will congratulate You and all other members of the organizing committee to a very successful conference. The concept of short talks in well defined topics retaind my concentration during the talks as the lecturers were forced to focus on the highlights in their messages. However the poster sessions were disasterous as only those standing nearest the presentators could listen to and argue the content or follow the discussions. Probably a result of the noisy environment with ventilator fans running. I suggest the use of loudspeaker-presentations at the next meeting as I expect the poster sessions to be more and more interesting as this conference evolves in the years to come. With regards

Comments on this and future meetings: Overall, fabulous Congress. The organization of papers, panels, debates and posters into thematic groupings was excellent...gave coherence and perspective to individual presentations. The quality of work presented was very high...should be maintained. Social events? Yes! Good to see people dancing and having fun. But happy to do whatever Florentines like to do in the evening too. When in Florence... Panel discussions? These were great. For someone who is very new in this area, the panel discussions, together with questions and challenges from the floor served a key function in giving perspective to the large amounts (for me anyway) of new information. Very helpful, both in showing where there is general consensus and where there are significant differences in approach. Poster sessions? I liked again, the thematic organization and the presentation + discussion format. Also that they were available for the whole period so one could read at leisure. The noise levels in the room made some presenters difficult to hear, so some thought to the physical/acoustic space might be in order. Debates? Great. Fun, but also useful in articulating key points of consensus and difference in the range of presentations. 10 minute talks? I am persuaded that almost all conferences would be better if people were in general limited to this time frame: it makes presenters focus on results and essential elements for understanding them. A lot of the rest of what happens in talks isn't really necessary. Exceptions for very special presentations...such as Hachinski's in closing (and in "debate"), or if the organizing committee judged someone to be presenting something completely new and/or of extraordinary significance to the group as a whole...seem a good idea too, but as the exception rather than the rule. Other things? "Thinking time". In the context of such an excellent and rich program, I found I wanted "thinking time" to process the information. It is perhaps no longer customary in Italy to take a long break (1-3/4 used to be common) in the afternoon. But doing so would provide the necessary "thinking time"....especially if talks and posters are thematically grouped and presented in the morning, and late afternoons used for panels, debates and special presentations around the same themes...sometimes, a little less is more... {I realize this is much as things were in Goteborg, I am only suggesting that a quiet period in the afternoon, even though it means working later in the day, might be very productive for people.} Anyway, that's it. Best regards for the planning and many thanks for the first,

I would like to congratulate you for a productive and and well-planned convention. The program was very good. I liked the debates very much. The roundtable poster presentation was a good concept. Unlike other international conventions wherein we just stand beside the poster and wait for interested participants to ask questions, your program allowed majority to learn about the different posters. If there are improvements to be made it would be 1) maybe lengthen the 5 minute oral presentations to 10 minutes and 2)more organized area for the roundtable discussions because some areas are just across the other making it difficult to focus and listen to a presentation.

I like the Congress both the format and the content although it was a bit repetitive. The psychiatric/behavioural disorder was under represented.

I have enjoyed VASCOG very much. The organisation went very smoothly and there were many interesting topics, talks and posters. My main criticism concerns the poster-sessions. Although the idea of round table sessions is good, I don't think it worked out the way it should have. First, I think there should be microphones available, or -even better- the posters should be in a less noisy room. Second, I think it would be a good idea to have a (short) postersession where every author stands next to his own poster in addition to the round table sessions. This gives you the opportunity to visit authors you want to ask specific questions. And I think -as an author of a poster-, it also gives more opportunity for one-to-one conversations. Sincerely,

I thought the conference was excellent. I enjoyed the debates the most. I don't have any recommendations for improvements. Congratulations and Thanks.

Again, I was totally satisfied with the meeting and if the future meetings are as good as this first one, it will be great. I appreciated that there were no (almost no) parallel sessions (for the only one, I had to go from one room to another and it was not fun). I think that short communications are good and finally I was not too much frustrated to have only 5 minutes to present. You may avoid all introduction, context, and some part of recurrent methodology that this audience knows perfectly well. I think you gave the invited speakers the instruction to be provocative or at least to say franckly what their opinion is, even if they cannot yet completely demonstrate it. It was very good. I enjoyed a lot the debate "the Jonnhy's" against Ingmar and Leonor animated by Raj.It was a pleasant way to recall scientific evidence and to go further on the reflexion on the interpretation of all the data. On the other hand, the days were very full and dense. I almost did not see the day light and it was a bit tiring.No time to have a short work meeting with a group of people (or to finish an urgent work you brought with you) . For example it was finally impossible for the student to meet during the meeting. Maybe an end at 6 pm (including the symposium) or a beginning at 9 or 9:30 am some days would give a breath of air (unless I am the only one always behind schedule..). It is NOT possible to make the meeting longer (more days) . I think that maybe we will have to make some choices and not to give the same amound of time for all the topics (any important they can be) and of course to be careful that a topic for which less time had been given will have more time the meeting after. It was very good to have oral presentation of all the posters. A first experience for many students and the chairpersons were very good. Unfortunately, there were not enough room and the acoustics were bad (difficult for not native speakers of English). (whereas it was excellent in the amphitheater). A small improvement can be done on this. People were kind and courteaous, even the "elephants" ! You certainly set the tone. Thank you! I think that's all that come to my mind, so far, a few days after the event.

it was good to meet up at VasCog I think the meeting went really well, you should be pleased with your efforts. I liked the fact that there were many plenary sessions and the poster discussions were very good though the room was a bit noisy. It may have been a day too long as the same issues started to recur next time there will be more to cover I guess. I realise that I did not join and would like to be considered for membership, I have attached a cv for your consideration please pass it on to wherever it needs to go with this e-mail address. I would just like to ask your opinion on something. As a result of the debates about diagnosis at VasCog and the fact that we have at last published the donepezil study data do you feel there is likely to be acceptance by the regulators that VaD is a definable indication and do you feel our data is enough to convince you and them that the drug effects are worthy of supporting with a licence. I am afraid I left VasCog before the regulations debates so I was not sure what the feeling of the group was. I would of course like to think that our study was significant enough to have a pivotal influence as I feel there is enough evidence to satisfy an extended licence indication, and that this makes sense as the AChEI's are really symptomatic treatments for the cholinergic dementia syndrome as a whole. I am not sure if there is any way I as a clinician can influence the debate, or what strength of evidence is required in view of the memantine licence, as I have never been involved at that level before. I know your views are extremely influential and I am just trying to get a feel for things and if there is anything I can do as I feel FDA may have set a precedent. Best wishes

Thanks for the email. I am replying to the address you gave me, but have a previous address which is the same apart from having psychiatry rather than neuor in it. Have you changed? Anyway, firstly, once again congratulations on the meeting. It was superb. You, and your colleagues, must be proud of your acheivement. My only (minor) suggestions are as follows: 1. Too many early starting after some late nights. I'm not so young as I was and find this difficult. 2. Poster sessions. Very difficult to hear what was being said, unless quite close to discussants. Others found this a problem too. Could they be in a separate arena so don't have to compete with the noise from the main exhibitions? 3. I personally prefer to have questions after the presentations rather than at the end of a session. Otherwise really excellent. Re Working Groups: Would suggest the following: 1. Trial design specifically for different entities, eg microvascular damage 2. re-assessment of the old drugs that we have all abandoned, to see if any of them might deserve further attention, ie because the earlier trials were poorly designed. 3. Re-thinking the diagnostic criteria for different aspects of VaD. I would be pleased to be involved in any of these areas. See you in Halifax. Best wishes

I thought the meeting was excellent, with the quality and content of most presentations being high. Limiting the length of the presentations seemed to help speakers to focus on key points and new information and thus avoid everyone repeating the same introductory remarks. The format of having a panel discussion worked well too. I would therefore keep this as it meant we did not feel we had to ask questions to each speaker, and many questions would have been repetitive (that is, the same question put to successive speakers; as elsewhere!). The roundtable poster format was good too. Finally, the debates, esp the one with you and the 2 Johns, were really very helpful; the format clarified the key issues for all and provided a good forum for discussing them. You really spoke very well as they did and the result was of course irrelevant; the issues were aired and points well made. I really don't have any significant criticisms. It was the best meeting I've attended and I'm commending VASCOG 2005 and looking forward to it. Well done!

In response to your inquiry, my remarks are as follows: 1. The poster presentations in the form of round table discussions was an excellent setup, this way all the posters received attention, and all the presenters were provided the opportunity to talk about their data. 2. Stimulating panel discussions following the regular talks made the interaction between speakers and audience also more lively, this was a very good idea! 3. Five minutes might be far too short for an oral presentation, 10 minutes may be preferable. 4. Epidemiological and clinical studies dominated, while experimental studies, animal models for vascular risk factors in cognitive decline were under-represented. I think the program could be more attractive if basic science would get more space. Thank you for the excellent organization, good luck in Florence in 2005!

The conference was overall quite good in my opinion.The 10-minute talks are very nice in that they permit the conference to cover a wide range of topics organized around a theme. It gives the opportunity for senior and junior people alike to present at an international conference. I like having the questions at the end of a group of talks, but sometimes the duration between the first and last talk was too much -- one might have to wait 1 hour to get a question answered. The debates were fun -- especially the one about whether AD was a vascular disorder -- this had more of a formal debate structure than the first one which was less well organized. The round-tables for posters was an excellent idea. The format really engages the poster presenters with senior people in the field and other researchers doing related work. Unfortunately, as you are aware, the acoustics were quite bad and it was virtually impossible to hear some of the presenters and questions posed to them. If this can be worked out in some way, it would be very very nice. I also liked the split session on the second conference morning -- it gave attendees choices about what to hear. Personally, I thought the social events were fair at best. The food was OK but not great. I disliked the music. It would have been nice for at least part of the entertainment to be "Swedish" in some way. Either a traditional musical or dance troupe, would have been nice -- if only for a short while. It was strange driking beer in Gothenborg while eating tacos and listening to American country-western music. I understand, though, the difficulties inherent in finding entertainment that would appeal to researchers from around the world, and overall it wasn't too bad.

VasCog 2003 was a exiting experience. The best of all: the round tables. We think this activity requires more time and better facilities. About the content we note virtual absence of basic science and genetics, topics of special importance in white matter disease. Finally, we are interested on cognitive rehabilitation and related non pharmacological strategies of treatment. The social events and local services was excellent. Our best regards. I thought Vas-Cog was an interesting and well run meeting. A particular positive was the brief presentation of each poster to chairs with a small audience. A slight negative for old fellows like me were the morning sessions after "late" evening social events, but I think this may be only a reaction of mine. Overall, a fine meeting.

Thank you for a wonderful conference and the marvellous Swedish hospitality.My thoughts: Positives: Small meeting and very collegial Single sessions that all could attend Wide coverage Debates and panel discussions Small footprint of industry 3.5 days, about the max length one can handle Ability to talk about the posters to a group Excellent weather! Few negatives: Many talks very brief (10 min) with less time for discussion Few basic science studies - genetics, basic pharmacology, neurophysiology, cellular biology under-represented. For the future: I hope the meeting will continue to be small - up to 600 or so (may be 800 max.). One approach could be to restrict it to those who submit an abstract (if there is a flood, these could be screened and culled). The majority of sessions will continue to be plenary We will invite more talks on genetics of stroke and VCI, the cellular mechanisms of ischemia, atherosclerosis, hypertension and other related disorders,

Many thanks again for a really great congress in Göteborg. I think the format of the congress was good. However, I think that questions should be asked and not written down for the chair person as was the case at several of the sessions. I think that written questions reduce the number of people who come with questions and is not very stimulating. The social events were great. My wife and I have never danced so much at a congress (Friday night-fantastic music!) I think that it would be a good idea to form an interest group on "The heart and the brain" which could discuss cardiac causes of vascular cognitive impairment including heart surgery Please give Anders and everyone else my regards and thanks for their work in making the first meeting such a great success. Regards from me David

Thank you for all of your hard work in organizing the VAS-COG congress. I found it very stimulating and one of the best opportunities that I have had recently to meet other researchers in the filed and to establish new collaborative relationships. I will give you my comments briefly. I enjoyed the brief talks and panel discussions as well as the "debates". There was some redundancy, however, in that a few of the speakers appeared on more than one occaision and even though the contexts differed, the information provided was often the same. If the meeting remains around the same size in Florence, I would suggest that concurrent sessions be avoided unless necessary and tha the posters section expanded if necessary. The poster "round tables" were unique and I generally liked them. Joh Morris did a great job as chair of the session that I was in. The only problem was with the acoustics which made it difficult for some of the more soft-spoken presenters. It might also be helpful to set aside a time when all poster presenters would be expected to attend their posters for an hour or so. There were a few that I did not get to because of concurrent round tables or the need to be at my own poster. That being said, I really enjoyed both the congress and your lovely city. Thanks again

The Society is tackling a great problem, and the meeting was generally fascinating. I enjoyed the idea of the roundtables, but the background level of noise interfered with communication in most sessions. The 10 minute talks were too short to my taste: less speakers, more time for each would be my suggestion. Repetion of topics over the 4 days was flagrant (one single slide I remember seeing 4 times!!!): shorter, more condensed meeting would be my suggestion. Very few young speakers were allowed on the platform, as opposed to well established names. Posters were generally very good. Thank you for a great meeting overall!!!

Generally enjoyed the meeting though probably more research orientated than the meetings I usually go to as primarily a Clinical Geriatrician. 10 minute slots often too short to put across enough detail ( though occasionally even 10 mins can seem too long! ) Prefer to have questions after each paper rather than groups at end of each session. Debates disappointing. Need to choose people who know how to debate & can make it more stimulating. Hotel Lorensberg & Conference venue excellent. Social Programme & organisation of meeting very good - typical Scandinavian efficiency & punctuality!

Below are some thought regarding the recent VASCOG meeting and some suggestions for the 2005 meeting. First, I should like to say that I consider the recent meeting in Gotenberg to be an unqualified success! I appreciated the fact that most sessions were available to all participants. The group continues to be small enough to allow for considerable discussion between participants. Second, I liked the fact that all poster were up for the entire conference and that they were located were meals were served. I think this allowed for lots of interaction between presenters and attendees of the meeting. I thought the round table discussions regarding the posters were very effective. It was useful to get immediate feedback from the group. Third, in terms of the plenary sessions I am wondering if it is possible to have some greater participation from neuropsychology. Issues regarding assessment in general and executive control in particular have clinical as well as theoretical relevance. As the planning for the 2005 meeting draws nearer, I would be happy to make some suggestions regarding either plenary sessions or symposia targeted at neuropsychological and/ or cognitive assessment issues. Fourth, at the business meeting there was discussion regarding the creation of VASCOG study sections or interest groups. I enthusiastically endorse this suggestion. A preliminary list of potential study section might include the following: Diagnosis of VaD: Continues review of existing diagnostic criteria and suggestions for revisions. Imaging: Methods to quantify MRI vascular alterations Neuropsychology: Two themes could be addressed. From a theoretical perspective, what are the important cognitive constructs in differentiating between dementing syndromes. For example, domains such as "memory" and "executive control" can be subdivided. Some of these subdivisions may be more relevant in assessing VaD than others. A second theme may revolve around more concrete assessment issues. Pathology: Clinical-pathological correlates have obvious importance. Treatment: Information regarding current and newly available compounds and their methods of action also has obvious importance. From my perspective of a neuropsychologist involved in research and clinical practice these are some of the topics that are important to me. I am sure other VASCOG members can and will expand this list. Some structure that allows for the interest sections to communicate with each would be beneficial. Thanks you for asking for my feedback. Please do not hesitate to contact me if there is anything I can do to facilitate plans for the 2005 meeting.

x Thank you to the organisers and the Executive Committee. VasCog2003 is one of the best conferences I have attended. Pros: - information on travel etc. provided by email - few parallel sessions - careful planning with mostly related talks (few exceptions) - breakfast session very good concept. Suggest review-talks like at AHA Stroke meetings. - mostly very dynamic chair-persons providing an informal and relaxed atmosphere (encouraging anybody to get up and ask questions) - poster presentation with chair persons good idea. Better planning, though (acoustics were very bad, impossible to follow discussions when two sessions collided) Cons: 5 min. talks is too short. Suggest 7 min. and max 4 talks (total of 28 min. +2 min. for technical obstacles) before questions. Finally: I would like to become a member. Who should I contact/email my CV to? Looking forward to the next meeting in Florence.

Thank you for your mail. First of all: All efforts put forward by you, Anders, and your co-hosts resulted in a wonderful congress. Congratulations! Below, please find comments on some issues: 1. I think the format was good, and I actually welcome your principle of short talks. 2. Most of the schedule was of the one-session format, which I think is a good strategy in order to glue together various angles of approach in the quickly developing field of vascular cognitive impairment. 3. Having panel discussions at the end of each session was fruitful - in fact, I believe the quality of discussions was secured at a high level by this arrangement. I have similar thoughts about the "provocative" discussions (the debates) - and, for the future: maintain carefully the good athmosphere in those sessions; it is very important that they do not develop into "boxing games". 4. Poster sessions: the round tables were occupied by food-intakers, unfortunately - the tables must be clearly reserved! Also, I suggest that, as a complement to sessions lead by a discussant/chairman, the author should be asked to be available for one hour (or so) during a couple of coffe-breaks to make possible more private discussions - which are often fruitful, in my opinion. Once again, thank you for an inspiring congress!

Thank you for your inquiry of September 03. Since I am returning to Japan tomorrow, let me quickly respond to it below. There were three major points which I made during the congress in Gothenberg: (1) Dementia is NOT a disease, be it caused by a vascular disorder or a neurdegenerative disorder; (2) Dementia is NOT synonymous with Alzheimer's disease because dementia can be caused by a subcortical disease as well, e.g., Parkinson's disease (PD), Huntington's disease (HD), or Spino-Cerebellar-Ataxia (SCA) formerly called Olivo-Ponto-Cerebellar Atrophy, none of which is vascular in origin; and (3) Alzheimer's disease does NOT HAVE TWO hallmarks, (i) neurofibrillary tangles and (ii) senile plaques, as has been erroneously assumed due to historical mix-up.

Sorry to be late to answer to your e-mail. I was too busy to do this after coming back from the congress. I am teaching nursing and think was only one attendant from this field. I enjoyed Panel discussions, debates and poster sessions. However, what I was most grateful in the congress was the special visiting to two group homes. Ewa Styrud helped me and scheduled within her busy duty. Thank you very much.

thanks for your message. I would be pleased to apply again to the nih for funding for the next meeting in florence. to do so I will need to provide a description, in as much detail as possible, of how successful the goteborg meeting was, and provide the nih with tangible examples of how the meeting advanced the field. I have some thoughts about the next meeting, which I would like to respectfully share with you. I thought the goteborg meeting was magnificent and very successful, and I am sure that the florence meeting will be also! 1. there should be discussion after each talk - for at least 5 min.. group discussions are great but cannot replace the need to ask pointed questions immediately. often the questions and answers are of more interest than anything the speaker has said in the talk. 2. I would like to see more of the basic sciences of vascular biology and atherosclerosis presented. many of the speakers are people we know well, and have heard them giving talks for decades! it would be great to have more new people, especially concerning atherosclerosis (pathogenesis, etiology, biochemistry, interactions with diet, activity, genes). I would be pleased to suggest speakers and help plan a session on vascular biology (I'm sure raj kalaria would be interested in this as well). 3. I propose that now that all our slides are electronic and saved on cd's we make them available on the web for downloading for educational use (for those who have registered for the meeting). of course there are some data slides that would not be made available... each speaker could note on the cd which slides he/she wishes to be withheld and which could be made available. and each speaker could put their name on the bottom of each slide so they are credited with the material. I am teaching neurology residents tomorrow and would love to have some of the slides from the meeting to show! I would be happy to make available all of the ones I showed, except one data slide which has not yet been published. 4. it seems that alcohol may be protective against cardiac and vascular diseases, as well as AD... you could solicit support for the meeting from the italian wine industry. I attended a meeting of the american aging association in baltimore in june organized by jim joseph of tufts (who would be a wonderful speaker for flowrence... he studies the effects of antioxidants on brain function in aging animals). he was successful in getting support for the meeting from industry groups for blueberry, grape and avocado growers. 5. I hope that the social events in florence reflect the grandeur and magnificent history of italy! my personal preference would be for archangelo corelli and antonio vivaldi (even though they were not from florence). as long as the music is not american or an italian version of american music! also, I would be honored to be a member of the organizing committee of the meeting, of course.

Many thanks again for a really great congress in Göteborg. I think the format of the congress was good. However, I think that questions should be asked and not written down for the chair person as was the case at several of the sessions. I think that written questions reduce the number of people who come with questions and is not very stimulating. The social events were great. My wife and I have never danced so much at a congress (Friday night-fantastic music!) I think that it would be a good idea to form an interest group on "The heart and the brain" which could discuss cardiac causes of vascular cognitive impairment including heart surgery. Please give Anders and everyone else my regards and thanks for their work in making the first meeting such a great success. Regards from me

I thought the format before was very good, varied and generally worked well and so should be largely retained. Some of the plenery's could have been a little longer as they were unduely rushed, but only allow another 5-10 mins. I think Sundays must be avoided altogether, ideally the meeting would finish Sat lunchtime at the very latest. Discussion needs to be after each series of talks (ie before coffee), the sessions which were packed with speakers before coffee with discussion left until lunch did not work so well and the early sessions were not properly discussed. I think some debates on treatments for VaD (CholEI/memantine and others) would be good as the data are mixed and this remains controversial. Something like "This house believes that there are clinicaly effective and safe treatments already available for vascular dementia which sould be made more widely available". There have been a number of interesting reports on post-stroke dementia and this would be a good topic for a session. It would be nice to have a session on diffusion tensor imaging and perhaps fMRI after stroke (either as a joint session or two separate ones). Please keep non-cognitive and behavioural features in there as well - maybe a broader session on BPSD and cerebrovascular disease rather than just on vascular depression. I would be happy to help as required.

Here are some suggestions: 1. Let's try to integrate more basic science; 2. Let's move into the areas of diabetes, hyperinsulinemia, insulin resistance and cognition; 3. Re-visit coronary artery bypass surgery and cognitive dysfunction and add a topic on anesthesia and possible cognitive dysfunction (short and long term); 4. Let's focus on structural brain changes and therapies that might alter this.