"How Well Do Individuals Predict the Selling Prices of Their Homes?"

Self-reported home values are widely used as a measure of housing wealth by researchers; the accuracy of this measure, however, is an open empirical question, and requires some type of market assessment of the values reported. In this study, the authors examine the predictive power of self-reported housing wealth when estimating housing prices, utilizing the portion of the University of Michigan's Health and Retirement Study covering 1992-2006. They find that homeowners, on average, overestimate the value of their properties by 5–10 percent. More importantly, the authors establish a strong correlation between accuracy and the economic conditions at the time of the property's purchase. While most individuals overestimate the value of their property, those who buy during more difficult economic times tend to be more accurate; in some cases, they even underestimate the property's value. The authors find a surprisingly strong, likely permanent, and in many cases long-lived effect of the initial conditions surrounding the purchase of properties, and on how individuals value them. This cyclicality of the overestimation of house prices provides some explanation for the difficulties currently faced by many homeowners, who were expecting large appreciations in home value to rescue them in case of interest rate increases--which could jeopardize their ability to live up to their financial commitments.

Riesgo quirúrgico tras resección pulmonar anatómica en cirugía torácica. Modelo predictivo a partir de una base de datos nacional multicéntrica

Introduction: the aim of this study was to develop a surgical risk prediction model in patients undergoing anatomic lung resections from the registry of the Spanish Video-Assisted Thoracic Surgery Group (GEVATS). Methods: data were collected from 3,533 patients undergoing anatomic lung resection for any diagnosis between December 20, 2016 and March 20, 2018. We defined a combined outcome variable: death or Clavien Dindo grade IV complication at 90 days after surgery. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed by logistic regression. Internal validation of the model was performed using resampling techniques. Results: the incidence of the outcome variable was 4.29% (95% CI 3.6-4.9). The variables remaining in the final logistic model were: age, sex, previous lung cancer resection, dyspnea (mMRC), right pneumonectomy, and ppo DLCO. The performance parameters of the model adjusted by resampling were: C-statistic 0.712 (95% CI 0.648-0.750), Brier score 0.042 and bootstrap shrinkage 0.854. Conclusions: the risk prediction model obtained from the GEVATS database is a simple, valid, and reliable model that is a useful tool for establishing the risk of a patient undergoing anatomic lung resection

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1.

In 2008, we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, this topic has received increasing attention, and many scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Thus, it is important to formulate on a regular basis updated guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Despite numerous reviews, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to evaluate autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. Here, we present a set of guidelines for investigators to select and interpret methods to examine autophagy and related processes, and for reviewers to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of reports that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a dogmatic set of rules, because the appropriateness of any assay largely depends on the question being asked and the system being used. Moreover, no individual assay is perfect for every situation, calling for the use of multiple techniques to properly monitor autophagy in each experimental setting. Finally, several core components of the autophagy machinery have been implicated in distinct autophagic processes (canonical and noncanonical autophagy), implying that genetic approaches to block autophagy should rely on targeting two or more autophagy-related genes that ideally participate in distinct steps of the pathway. Along similar lines, because multiple proteins involved in autophagy also regulate other cellular pathways including apoptosis, not all of them can be used as a specific marker for bona fide autophagic responses. Here, we critically discuss current methods of assessing autophagy and the information they can, or cannot, provide. Our ultimate goal is to encourage intellectual and technical innovation in the field

Resultados de la estadificación clínica ganglionar mediastínica del cáncer pulmonar quirúrgico: datos de la cohorte prospectiva nacional del Grupo Español de Cirugía Torácica Videoasistida

Introducción: El objetivo del estudio es valorar el rendimiento diagnóstico de la tomografía computarizada (TC) y la tomografía por emisión de positrones (PET) en la estadificación clínica mediastínica del cáncer pulmonar quirúrgico según los datos de la cohorte prospectiva del Grupo Español de Cirugía Torácica Videoasistida (GEVATS). Métodos: Se han analizado 2.782 pacientes intervenidos por carcinoma pulmonar primario. Se ha estudiado el acierto diagnóstico en la estadificación mediastínica (cN2). Se ha realizado un análisis bivariante y multivariante de los factores que influyen en el acierto. Se ha estudiado el riesgo de pN2 inesperado en los factores con los que se recomienda una prueba invasiva de estadificación: cN1, tumor central o tamaño mayor de 3cm. Resultados: El acierto global de la TC y PET en conjunto es del 82,9% con VPP y VPN de 0,21 y 0,93. En tumores mayores de 3cm y a mayor SUVmax del mediastino, el acierto es menor, OR de 0,59 (0,44 - 0,79) y 0,71 (0,66 - 0,75), respectivamente. En el abordaje VATS el acierto es mayor, OR de 2,04 (1,52 - 2,73). El riesgo de pN2 inesperado aumenta con el número de los factores cN1, tumor central o tamaño mayor de 3cm: entre el 4,5% (0 factores) y 18,8% (3 factores), pero no hay diferencias significativas con la realización de prueba invasiva. Conclusiones: La TC y PET en conjunto tienen un elevado valor predictivo negativo. Su acierto global es menor en tumores mayores de 3cm y SUVmax del mediastino elevado, y mayor en el abordaje VATS. El riesgo de pN2 inesperado es mayor si cN1, tumor central o mayor de 3cm y no varía significativamente con prueba invasiva