Multi-view Self-supervised Disentanglement for General Image Denoising

With its significant performance improvements, the deep learning paradigm has become a standard tool for modern image denoisers. While promising performance has been shown on seen noise distributions, existing approaches often suffer from generalisation to unseen noise types or general and real noise. It is understandable as the model is designed to learn paired mapping (e.g. from a noisy image to its clean version). In this paper, we instead propose to learn to disentangle the noisy image, under the intuitive assumption that different corrupted versions of the same clean image share a common latent space. A self-supervised learning framework is proposed to achieve the goal, without looking at the latent clean image. By taking two different corrupted versions of the same image as input, the proposed Multi-view Self-supervised Disentanglement (MeD) approach learns to disentangle the latent clean features from the corruptions and recover the clean image consequently. Extensive experimental analysis on both synthetic and real noise shows the superiority of the proposed method over prior self-supervised approaches, especially on unseen novel noise types. On real noise, the proposed method even outperforms its supervised counterparts by over 3 dB

Multi-view Self-supervised Disentanglement for General Image Denoising

With its significant performance improvements, the deep learning paradigm has become a standard tool for modern image denoisers. While promising performance has been shown on seen noise distributions, existing approaches often suffer from generalisation to unseen noise types or general and real noise. It is understandable as the model is designed to learn paired mapping (e.g. from a noisy image to its clean version). In this paper, we instead propose to learn to disentangle the noisy image, under the intuitive assumption that different corrupted versions of the same clean image share a common latent space. A self-supervised learning framework is proposed to achieve the goal, without looking at the latent clean image. By taking two different corrupted versions of the same image as input, the proposed Multi-view Self-supervised Disentanglement (MeD) approach learns to disentangle the latent clean features from the corruptions and recover the clean image consequently. Extensive experimental analysis on both synthetic and real noise shows the superiority of the proposed method over prior self-supervised approaches, especially on unseen novel noise types. On real noise, the proposed method even outperforms its supervised counterparts by over 3 dB.Comment: International Conference on Computer Vision 2023 (ICCV 2023

Progresses and Perspectives of Anti-PD-1/PD-L1 Antibody Therapy in Head and Neck Cancers

Head and neck cancer is the 6th most common malignancy worldwide and urgently requires novel therapy methods to change the situation of low 5-years survival rate and poor prognosis. Targeted therapy provides more precision, higher efficiency while lower adverse effects than traditional treatments like surgery, radiotherapy, and chemotherapy. Blockade of PD-1 pathway with antibodies against PD-1 or PD-L1 is such a typical targeted therapy which reconstitutes anti-tumor activity of T cell in treatments of cancers, especially those highly expressing PD-L1, including head and neck cancers. There are many clinical trials all over the world and FDA has approved anti-PD-1/PD-L1 drugs for head and neck cancers. However, with the time going, the dark side of this therapy has emerged, including some serious side effects and drug resistance. Novel materials like nanoparticles and combination therapy have been developed to improve the efficacy. At the same time, standards for evaluation of activity and safety are to be established for this new therapy. Here we provide a systematic review with comprehensive depth on the application of anti-PD1/PD-L1 antibodies in head and neck cancer treatment: mechanism, drugs, clinical studies, influencing factors, adverse effects and managements, and the potential future developments

Inhibiting Delta-6 Desaturase Activity Suppresses Tumor Growth in Mice

Recent studies have shown that a tumor-supportive microenvironment is characterized by high levels of pro-inflammatory and pro-angiogenic eicosanoids derived from omega-6 (n−6) arachidonic acid (AA). Although the metabolic pathways (COX, LOX, and P450) that generate these n−6 AA eicosanoids have been targeted, the role of endogenous AA production in tumorigenesis remains unexplored. Delta-6 desaturase (D6D) is the rate-limiting enzyme responsible for the synthesis of n−6 AA and increased D6D activity can lead to enhanced n−6 AA production. Here, we show that D6D activity is upregulated during melanoma and lung tumor growth and that suppressing D6D activity, either by RNAi knockdown or a specific D6D inhibitor, dramatically reduces tumor growth. Accordingly, the content of AA and AA-derived tumor-promoting metabolites is significantly decreased. Angiogenesis and inflammatory status are also reduced. These results identify D6D as a key factor for tumor growth and as a potential target for cancer therapy and prevention

Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) for the detection of dementia in clinically unevaluated people aged 65 and over in community and primary care populations

BACKGROUND: The Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE) is a cognitive test that is commonly used as part of the evaluation for possible dementia. OBJECTIVES: To determine the diagnostic accuracy of the Mini‐Mental State Examination (MMSE) at various cut points for dementia in people aged 65 years and over in community and primary care settings who had not undergone prior testing for dementia. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the specialised register of the Cochrane Dementia and Cognitive Improvement Group, MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), PsycINFO (OvidSP), LILACS (BIREME), ALOIS, BIOSIS previews (Thomson Reuters Web of Science), and Web of Science Core Collection, including the Science Citation Index and the Conference Proceedings Citation Index (Thomson Reuters Web of Science). We also searched specialised sources of diagnostic test accuracy studies and reviews: MEDION (Universities of Maastricht and Leuven, www.mediondatabase.nl), DARE (Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, via the Cochrane Library), HTA Database (Health Technology Assessment Database, via the Cochrane Library), and ARIF (University of Birmingham, UK, www.arif.bham.ac.uk). We attempted to locate possibly relevant but unpublished data by contacting researchers in this field. We first performed the searches in November 2012 and then fully updated them in May 2014. We did not apply any language or date restrictions to the electronic searches, and we did not use any methodological filters as a method to restrict the search overall. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that compared the 11‐item (maximum score 30) MMSE test (at any cut point) in people who had not undergone prior testing versus a commonly accepted clinical reference standard for all‐cause dementia and subtypes (Alzheimer disease dementia, Lewy body dementia, vascular dementia, frontotemporal dementia). Clinical diagnosis included all‐cause (unspecified) dementia, as defined by any version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM); International Classification of Diseases (ICD) and the Clinical Dementia Rating. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: At least three authors screened all citations.Two authors handled data extraction and quality assessment. We performed meta‐analysis using the hierarchical summary receiver‐operator curves (HSROC) method and the bivariate method. MAIN RESULTS: We retrieved 24,310 citations after removal of duplicates. We reviewed the full text of 317 full‐text articles and finally included 70 records, referring to 48 studies, in our synthesis. We were able to perform meta‐analysis on 28 studies in the community setting (44 articles) and on 6 studies in primary care (8 articles), but we could not extract usable 2 x 2 data for the remaining 14 community studies, which we did not include in the meta‐analysis. All of the studies in the community were in asymptomatic people, whereas two of the six studies in primary care were conducted in people who had symptoms of possible dementia. We judged two studies to be at high risk of bias in the patient selection domain, three studies to be at high risk of bias in the index test domain and nine studies to be at high risk of bias regarding flow and timing. We assessed most studies as being applicable to the review question though we had concerns about selection of participants in six studies and target condition in one study. The accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia was reported at 18 cut points in the community (MMSE score 10, 14‐30 inclusive) and 10 cut points in primary care (MMSE score 17‐26 inclusive). The total number of participants in studies included in the meta‐analyses ranged from 37 to 2727, median 314 (interquartile range (IQR) 160 to 647). In the community, the pooled accuracy at a cut point of 24 (15 studies) was sensitivity 0.85 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.74 to 0.92), specificity 0.90 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.95); at a cut point of 25 (10 studies), sensitivity 0.87 (95% CI 0.78 to 0.93), specificity 0.82 (95% CI 0.65 to 0.92); and in seven studies that adjusted accuracy estimates for level of education, sensitivity 0.97 (95% CI 0.83 to 1.00), specificity 0.70 (95% CI 0.50 to 0.85). There was insufficient data to evaluate the accuracy of the MMSE for diagnosing dementia subtypes.We could not estimate summary diagnostic accuracy in primary care due to insufficient data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The MMSE contributes to a diagnosis of dementia in low prevalence settings, but should not be used in isolation to confirm or exclude disease. We recommend that future work evaluates the diagnostic accuracy of tests in the context of the diagnostic pathway experienced by the patient and that investigators report how undergoing the MMSE changes patient‐relevant outcomes

Actively implementing an evidence-based feeding guideline for critically ill patients (NEED): a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial

Background: Previous cluster-randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of implementing evidence-based guidelines for nutrition therapy in critical illness do not consistently demonstrate patient benefits. A large-scale, sufficiently powered study is therefore warranted to ascertain the effects of guideline implementation on patient-centered outcomes. Methods: We conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, parallel-controlled trial in intensive care units (ICUs) across China. We developed an evidence-based feeding guideline. ICUs randomly allocated to the guideline group formed a local "intervention team", which actively implemented the guideline using standardized educational materials, a graphical feeding protocol, and live online education outreach meetings conducted by members of the study management committee. ICUs assigned to the control group remained unaware of the guideline content. All ICUs enrolled patients who were expected to stay in the ICU longer than seven days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days of enrollment. Results: Forty-eight ICUs were randomized to the guideline group and 49 to the control group. From March 2018 to July 2019, the guideline ICUs enrolled 1399 patients, and the control ICUs enrolled 1373 patients. Implementation of the guideline resulted in significantly earlier EN initiation (1.20 vs. 1.55 mean days to initiation of EN; difference − 0.40 [95% CI − 0.71 to − 0.09]; P = 0.01) and delayed PN initiation (1.29 vs. 0.80 mean days to start of PN; difference 1.06 [95% CI 0.44 to 1.67]; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (14.2% vs. 15.2%; difference − 1.6% [95% CI − 4.3% to 1.2%]; P = 0.42) between groups. Conclusions: In this large-scale, multicenter trial, active implementation of an evidence-based feeding guideline reduced the time to commencement of EN and overall PN use but did not translate to a reduction in mortality from critical illness. Trial registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN12233792. Registered November 20th, 2017

Actively implementing an evidence-based feeding guideline for critically ill patients (NEED): a multicenter, cluster-randomized, controlled trial.

BackgroundPrevious cluster-randomized controlled trials evaluating the impact of implementing evidence-based guidelines for nutrition therapy in critical illness do not consistently demonstrate patient benefits. A large-scale, sufficiently powered study is therefore warranted to ascertain the effects of guideline implementation on patient-centered outcomes.MethodsWe conducted a multicenter, cluster-randomized, parallel-controlled trial in intensive care units (ICUs) across China. We developed an evidence-based feeding guideline. ICUs randomly allocated to the guideline group formed a local "intervention team", which actively implemented the guideline using standardized educational materials, a graphical feeding protocol, and live online education outreach meetings conducted by members of the study management committee. ICUs assigned to the control group remained unaware of the guideline content. All ICUs enrolled patients who were expected to stay in the ICU longer than seven days. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality within 28 days of enrollment.ResultsForty-eight ICUs were randomized to the guideline group and 49 to the control group. From March 2018 to July 2019, the guideline ICUs enrolled 1399 patients, and the control ICUs enrolled 1373 patients. Implementation of the guideline resulted in significantly earlier EN initiation (1.20 vs. 1.55 mean days to initiation of EN; difference - 0.40 [95% CI - 0.71 to - 0.09]; P = 0.01) and delayed PN initiation (1.29 vs. 0.80 mean days to start of PN; difference 1.06 [95% CI 0.44 to 1.67]; P = 0.001). There was no significant difference in 28-day mortality (14.2% vs. 15.2%; difference - 1.6% [95% CI - 4.3% to 1.2%]; P = 0.42) between groups.ConclusionsIn this large-scale, multicenter trial, active implementation of an evidence-based feeding guideline reduced the time to commencement of EN and overall PN use but did not translate to a reduction in mortality from critical illness.Trial registrationISRCTN, ISRCTN12233792 . Registered November 20th, 2017