Somatic hypermutation defects in two adult hyper immunoglobulin M patients

Immunologic Research - Hyper immunoglobulin M (HIGM) syndrome is a rare disorder of the immune system with impaired antibody functions. The clinical picture of the patients varies according to the...     

Measuring Psychological Inflexibility of Suicidal Thoughts: The Acceptance and Action Questionnaire for Suicidal Ideation (AAQ-SI)

Cognitive Therapy and Research - Despite interest in psychological inflexibility as a marker of suicide risk, no measure of psychological inflexibility specific to SI exists. The present study...     

Diagnostic difficulty,delayed diagnosis,and increased tendencies of surgical treatment in fibromyalgia syndrome

Clinical Rheumatology - Aimed to evaluate the time elapsed between the onset of early symptoms and the diagnosis of fibromyalgia syndrome (FMS), the delays in diagnosis and frequent physician...     

PREDICT-GTN 1: Can we improve the FIGO scoring system in gestational trophoblastic neoplasia?

Gestational trophoblastic neoplasia (GTN) patients are treated according to the eight-variable International Federation of Gynaecology and Obstetrics (FIGO) scoring system, that aims to predict first-line single-agent chemotherapy resistance. FIGO is imperfect with one-third of low-risk patients developing disease resistance to first-line single-agent chemotherapy. We aimed to generate simplified models that improve upon FIGO. Logistic regression (LR) and multilayer perceptron (MLP) modelling (n = 4191) generated six models (M1-6). M1, all eight FIGO variables (scored data); M2, all eight FIGO variables (scored and raw data); M3, nonimaging variables (scored data); M4, nonimaging variables (scored and raw data); M5, imaging variables (scored data); and M6, pretreatment hCG (raw data) + imaging variables (scored data). Performance was compared to FIGO using true and false positive rates, positive and negative predictive values, diagnostic odds ratio, receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, Bland-Altman calibration plots, decision curve analysis and contingency tables. M1-6 were calibrated and outperformed FIGO on true positive rate and positive predictive value. Using LR and MLP, M1, M2 and M4 generated small improvements to the ROC curve and decision curve analysis. M3, M5 and M6 matched FIGO or performed less well. Compared to FIGO, most (excluding LR M4 and MLP M5) had significant discordance in patient classification (McNemar's test P < .05); 55-112 undertreated, 46-206 overtreated. Statistical modelling yielded only small gains over FIGO performance, arising through recategorisation of treatment-resistant patients, with a significant proportion of under/overtreatment as the available data have been used a priori to allocate primary chemotherapy. Streamlining FIGO should now be the focus.