Neutralizing antibodies explain the poor clinical response to Interferon beta in a small proportion of patients with Multiple Sclerosis: a retrospective study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Neutralizing antibodies (NAbs) against Interferon beta (IFNβ) are reported to be associated with poor clinical response to therapy in multiple sclerosis (MS) patients. We aimed to quantify the contribution of NAbs to the sub-optimal response of IFNβ treatment.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>We studied the prevalence of NAbs in MS patients grouped according to their clinical response to IFNβ during the treatment period. Patients were classified as: group A, developing ≥ 1 relapse after the first 6 months of therapy; group B, exhibiting confirmed disability progression after the first 6 months of therapy, with or without superimposed relapses; group C, presenting a stable disease course during therapy. A cytopathic effect assay tested the presence of NAbs in a cohort of ambulatory MS patients treated with one of the available IFNβ formulations for at least one year. NAbs positivity was defined as NAbs titre ≥ 20 TRU.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Seventeen patients (12.1%) were NAbs positive. NAbs positivity correlated with poorer clinical response (<it>p </it>< 0.04). As expected, the prevalence of NAbs was significantly lower in Group C (2.1%) than in Group A (17.0%) and Group B (17.0%). However, in the groups of patients with a poor clinical response (A, B), NAbs positivity was found only in a small proportion of patients.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The majority of patients with poor clinical response are NAbs negative suggesting that NAbs explains only partially the sub-optimal response to IFNβ.</p

Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency–Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research

The additional value of CT images interpretation in the differential diagnosis of benign vs. malignant primary bone lesions with 18F-FDG-PET/CT

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of a dedicated interpretation of the CT images in the differential diagnosis of benign vs. malignant primary bone lesions with 18 fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography/computed tomography (18F-FDG-PET/CT). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In 50 consecutive patients (21 women, 29 men, mean age 36.9, age range 11-72) with suspected primary bone neoplasm conventional radiographs and 18F-FDG-PET/CT were performed. Differentiation of benign and malignant lesions was separately performed on conventional radiographs, PET alone (PET), and PET/CT with specific evaluation of the CT part. Histology served as the standard of reference in 46 cases, clinical, and imaging follow-up in four cases. RESULTS: According to the standard of reference, conventional 17 lesions were benign and 33 malignant. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy in assessment of malignancy was 85%, 65% and 78% for conventional radiographs, 85%, 35% and 68% for PET alone and 91%, 77% and 86% for combined PET/CT. Median SUV(max) was 3.5 for benign lesions (range 1.6-8.0) and 5.7 (range 0.8-41.7) for malignant lesions. In eight patients with bone lesions with high FDG-uptake (SUV(max) >or= 2.5) dedicated CT interpretation led to the correct diagnosis of a benign lesion (three fibrous dysplasias, two osteomyelitis, one aneurysmatic bone cyst, one fibrous cortical defect, 1 phosphaturic mesenchymal tumor). In four patients with lesions with low FDG-uptake (SUV(max) < 2.5) dedicated CT interpretation led to the correct diagnosis of a malignant lesion (three chondrosarcomas and one leiomyosarcoma). Combined PET/CT was significantly more accurate in the differentiation of benign and malignant lesions than PET alone (p = .039). There was no significant difference between PET/CT and conventional radiographs (p = .625). CONCLUSION: Dedicated interpretation of the CT part significantly improved the performance of FDG-PET/CT in differentiation of benign and malignant primary bone lesions compared to PET alone. PET/CT more commonly differentiated benign from malignant primary bone lesions compared with conventional radiographs, but this difference was not significant

De deliberatibus disputandum est: a response to Jürg Steiner

This article takes issue with Steiner's polemic against the usage of deliberation in rational choice scholarship. I show i) that the reproach that rationalists do not allow for preference change is mistaken; ii) that Steiner does not sufficiently distinguish between normative and positive contributions and iii) that he shields his preferred model against systematic comparisons with strategic models of deliberation. In my view, we need more competing model evaluations rather than misleading attacks against imagined heretics