Applicability and precautions of use of liver injury biomarker FibroTest. A reappraisal at 7 years of age

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>FibroTest (FT) is a validated biomarker of fibrosis. To assess the applicability rate and to reduce the risk of false positives/negatives (RFPN), security algorithms were developed. The aims were to estimate the prevalence of RFPN and of proven failures, and to identify factors associated with their occurrences.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Four populations were studied: 954 blood donors (P1), 7,494 healthy volunteers (P2), 345,695 consecutive worldwide sera (P3), including 24,872 sera analyzed in a tertiary care centre (GHPS) (P4). Analytical procedures of laboratories with RFPN > 5% and charts of P4 patients in with RFPN were reviewed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The prevalence of RFPN was 0.52% (5/954; 95%CI 0.17-1.22) in P1, 0.51% (38/7494; 0.36-0.70) in P2, and 0.97% (3349/345695; 0.94-1.00) in P3. Three a priori high-risk populations were confirmed: 1.97% in P4, 1.77% in HIV centre and 2.61% in Sub-Saharan origin subjects. RFPN was mostly associated with low haptoglobin (0.46%), and high apolipoproteinA1 (0.21%). A traceability study of a P3 laboratory with RFPFN > 5% permitted to correct analytical procedures.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The mean applicability rate of Fibrotest was 99.03%. Independent factors associated with the high risk of false positives/negatives were HIV center, subSaharan origin, and a tertiary care reference centre, although the applicability rate remained above 97%.</p

Diagnostic performance of FibroTest, SteatoTest and ActiTest in patients with NAFLD using the SAF score as histological reference

BACKGROUND: Blood tests of liver injury are less well validated in non‐alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) than in patients with chronic viral hepatitis. AIMS: To improve the validation of three blood tests used in NAFLD patients, FibroTest for fibrosis staging, SteatoTest for steatosis grading and ActiTest for inflammation activity grading. METHODS: We pre‐included new NAFLD patients with biopsy and blood tests from a single‐centre cohort (FibroFrance) and from the multicentre FLIP consortium. Contemporaneous biopsies were blindly assessed using the new steatosis, activity and fibrosis (SAF) score, which provides a reliable and reproducible diagnosis and grading/staging of the three elementary features of NAFLD (steatosis, inflammatory activity) and fibrosis with reduced interobserver variability. We used nonbinary‐ROC (NonBinAUROC) as the main endpoint to prevent spectrum effect and multiple testing. RESULTS: A total of 600 patients with reliable tests and biopsies were included. The mean NonBinAUROCs (95% CI) of tests were all significant (P < 0.0001): 0.878 (0.864–0.892) for FibroTest and fibrosis stages, 0.846 (0.830–0.862) for ActiTest and activity grades, and 0.822 (0.804–0.840) for SteatoTest and steatosis grades. FibroTest had a higher NonBinAUROC than BARD (0.836; 0.820–0.852; P = 0.0001), FIB4 (0.845; 0.829–0.861; P = 0.007) but not significantly different than the NAFLD score (0.866; 0.850–0.882; P = 0.26). FibroTest had a significant difference in median values between adjacent stage F2 and stage F1 contrarily to BARD, FIB4 and NAFLD scores (Bonferroni test P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with NAFLD, SteatoTest, ActiTest and FibroTest are non‐invasive tests that offer an alternative to biopsy, and they correlate with the simple grading/staging of the SAF scoring system across the three elementary features of NAFLD: steatosis, inflammatory activity and fibrosis

The Psychological Science Accelerator: Advancing Psychology Through a Distributed Collaborative Network

Source at https://doi.org/10.1177/2515245918797607.Concerns about the veracity of psychological research have been growing. Many findings in psychological science are based on studies with insufficient statistical power and nonrepresentative samples, or may otherwise be limited to specific, ungeneralizable settings or populations. Crowdsourced research, a type of large-scale collaboration in which one or more research projects are conducted across multiple lab sites, offers a pragmatic solution to these and other current methodological challenges. The Psychological Science Accelerator (PSA) is a distributed network of laboratories designed to enable and support crowdsourced research projects. These projects can focus on novel research questions or replicate prior research in large, diverse samples. The PSA’s mission is to accelerate the accumulation of reliable and generalizable evidence in psychological science. Here, we describe the background, structure, principles, procedures, benefits, and challenges of the PSA. In contrast to other crowdsourced research networks, the PSA is ongoing (as opposed to time limited), efficient (in that structures and principles are reused for different projects), decentralized, diverse (in both subjects and researchers), and inclusive (of proposals, contributions, and other relevant input from anyone inside or outside the network). The PSA and other approaches to crowdsourced psychological science will advance understanding of mental processes and behaviors by enabling rigorous research and systematic examination of its generalizability

The upgraded ring loss radiation monitorinng system at the AGS

With the Booster the AGS will accelerate protons to 3 /times/ 10/sup 13/ per cycle, polarized protons at 10/sup 12/, and ions from Carbon to Gold at intensities from 50 to 3 /times/ 10/sup 9/. A loss monitoring system is being developed to facilitate tuning, and to reduce personnel radiation exposure by minimizing residual induced activity and by allowing remote monitoring of activity in the accelerator enclosure. The monitoring system must have a large dynamic range to monitor high intensity beam losses and to measure induced activity down to the level of a few mrad/hour. Various detectors are being evaluated, including ion chambers, proportional counters, and aluminium cathode electronmultipliers. Measurements of the prompt ionization distribution in the median plane at various energies from point targets at two representative locations in the accelerator lattice have been completed. Details of the monitoring system will be presented, as well as the experimental measurements of the prompt radiation field, and a comparable Monte Carlo calculation. 2 refs., 5 figs