Can nailfold videocapillaroscopy images be interpreted reliably by different observers? Results of an inter-reader and intra-reader exercise among rheumatologists with different experience in this field

Nailfold videocapillaroscopy (VCP) allows non-invasive assessment of the microcirculation. Adequate training in this field is relevant for rheumatologists. There is increasing evidence of the reliability of VCP findings among different readers. Objective: To evaluate inter- and intra-reader agreement of rheumatologists to identify normal images and systemic sclerosis (SSc) patterns on VCP (\u201cearly,\u201d \u201cactive,\u201d and \u201clate\u201d proposed by Cutolo et al.). Thirteen rheumatologists with different experience in nailfold VCP received training to standardize reading criteria. They rated 60 VCP images from healthy and SSc patients at baseline and 4 weeks later, using an electronic platform. The reading of an expert was considered the gold standard. Data were analyzed using Cohen\u2019s kappa for concordance and Student\u2019s t test and ANOVA to compare kappa means for inter-reader, intra-reader, and inter-pattern readings. Mean inter-reader and intra-reader kappa were 0.45 and 0.49, respectively, (moderate agreement). Kappa scores were higher among experienced vs inexperienced readers (inter-reader kappa 0.58 vs 0.34, p = 0.001, intra-reader kappa 0.65 vs 0.37, p = 0.01). Agreement was substantial (kappa = 0.61) for the identification of normal vs abnormal images and higher for the identification of active (0.48, p = 0.009) and late SSc patterns (0.56, p = 0.008) than for the early SSc pattern (0.35, p = 0.003). There is moderate agreement among rheumatologists for the identification of SSc videocapillaroscopy patterns (higher among experienced rheumatologists) and substantial agreement, regardless of previous experience in VCP, in the identification of normal and abnormal images. Agreement for the identification of active and late patterns is higher than for the early pattern. \ua9 2018, International League of Associations for Rheumatology (ILAR)

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy.

In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. A key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process vs. those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process); thus, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation needs to be differentiated from stimuli that result in increased autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular autophagy assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field