Comparison of guidelines and consensus articles on the management of patients with acne with oral isotretinoin

Guidelines and consensus on the management of patients with acne aim to give evidence-based, expert-group recommendations. This review compares current guidelines and consensus articles to provide a compilation of recommendations on the treatment of acne with oral isotretinoin. Ten common, relevant, clinical questions are addressed, based on published recommendations, including the indications of isotretinoin, the proposed daily dose, the cumulative isotretinoin dose and the laboratory monitoring needed. Recommendations on special considerations are also addressed, including the timing of procedures and the question of an association of depression or inflammatory bowel disease with isotretinoin. A major limitation is the use of different classification systems for acne across guidelines. The recommended daily dose ranges from 0.3 to 0.5 mg/kg in the European guidelines to up to 1 mg/kg in the US guidelines. A specific duration of treatment of at least 6 months is only recommended in the European guidelines. All guidelines report the need of strict pregnancy prevention measures. The European, French and US guidelines recommend to monitor for symptoms of depression. Important clinical questions that are inconsistently addressed in guidelines include the age indication, the recommendation for a cumulative dose, the timing of procedures, the association of isotretinoin with IBD, the recommendation for preventing acne flares and for appropriate laboratory monitoring. These topics should be clearly included in the recommendations of guidelines as they are often raised in everyday clinical practice.     

Tractostorm: The what,why, and how of tractography dissection reproducibility

Investigative studies of white matter (WM) brain structures using diffusion MRI (dMRI) tractography frequently require manual WM bundle segmentation, often called “virtual dissection.” Human errors and personal decisions make these manual segmentations hard to reproduce, which have not yet been quantified by the dMRI community. It is our opinion that if the field of dMRI tractography wants to be taken seriously as a widespread clinical tool, it is imperative to harmonize WM bundle segmentations and develop protocols aimed to be used in clinical settings. The EADC‐ADNI Harmonized Hippocampal Protocol achieved such standardization through a series of steps that must be reproduced for every WM bundle. This article is an observation of the problematic. A specific bundle segmentation protocol was used in order to provide a real‐life example, but the contribution of this article is to discuss the need for reproducibility and standardized protocol, as for any measurement tool. This study required the participation of 11 experts and 13 nonexperts in neuroanatomy and “virtual dissection” across various laboratories and hospitals. Intra‐rater agreement (Dice score) was approximately 0.77, while inter‐rater was approximately 0.65. The protocol provided to participants was not necessarily optimal, but its design mimics, in essence, what will be required in future protocols. Reporting tractometry results such as average fractional anisotropy, volume or streamline count of a particular bundle without a sufficient reproducibility score could make the analysis and interpretations more difficult. Coordinated efforts by the diffusion MRI tractography community are needed to quantify and account for reproducibility of WM bundle extraction protocols in this era of open and collaborative science.     

Automated classification of depression from structural brain measures across two independent community‐based cohorts

Major depressive disorder (MDD) has been the subject of many neuroimaging case–control classification studies. Although some studies report accuracies ≥80%, most have investigated relatively small samples of clinically‐ascertained, currently symptomatic cases, and did not attempt replication in larger samples. We here first aimed to replicate previously reported classification accuracies in a small, well‐phenotyped community‐based group of current MDD cases with clinical interview‐based diagnoses (from STratifying Resilience and Depression Longitudinally cohort, ‘STRADL’). We performed a set of exploratory predictive classification analyses with measures related to brain morphometry and white matter integrity. We applied three classifier types—SVM, penalised logistic regression or decision tree—either with or without optimisation, and with or without feature selection. We then determined whether similar accuracies could be replicated in a larger independent population‐based sample with self‐reported current depression (UK Biobank cohort). Additional analyses extended to lifetime MDD diagnoses—remitted MDD in STRADL, and lifetime‐experienced MDD in UK Biobank. The highest cross‐validation accuracy (75%) was achieved in the initial current MDD sample with a decision tree classifier and cortical surface area features. The most frequently selected decision tree split variables included surface areas of bilateral caudal anterior cingulate, left lingual gyrus, left superior frontal, right precentral and paracentral regions. High accuracy was not achieved in the larger samples with self‐reported current depression (53.73%), with remitted MDD (57.48%), or with lifetime‐experienced MDD (52.68–60.29%). Our results indicate that high predictive classification accuracies may not immediately translate to larger samples with broader criteria for depression, and may not be robust across different classification approaches.