Working with parents in parent–child art psychotherapy

This article is part of a broader study that addresses the consolidation of a parent–child art psychotherapy model. It outlines the advantages, challenges, and art interventions that can be used by art therapists when working with parents. Twenty parent–child art therapists participated in this study. Fifteen were interviewed regarding their practical experience. The therapists’ perceptions of parents’ attitudes towards the experience of participation in therapy, encouraging parents to participate in the therapy, parental guidance, using art in therapy meetings, and the therapists’ own parenting were characterized. The findings can help familiarize mental health therapists, art therapy students, and novice art therapists with the parental aspects of the parent–child art psychotherapy model.     

American council on ECP (ACE): Why now?

Stimulated by the scientific progress in deciphering the principal elements contributing to the clinical efficacy of extracorporeal photochemotherapy (ECP), the American Council on ECP (ACE) was formed, under the auspices of the American Society for Apheresis (ASFA), to develop a field‐guiding Consensus Report. ACE is composed of thirty nationally recognized ECP experts, clinically spanning cancer, transplantation, and autoimmunity and scientifically bridging immunology, bioengineering, and hematology. The two‐day meeting took place in Manhattan, April 13‐14, 2017, and unanimous consensus on nine pivotal points is herein reported. (1) ECP's clinical evolution must now enter a scientifically driven phase. (2) ECP is currently a bidirectional therapy, both immunizing and tolerizing simultaneously, via a single one‐size‐fits‐all inflexible medical device. (3) To preclude inadvertent tolerization in the cancer setting, or immunization in the transplant rejection setting, polarization of ECP to either immunization or tolerization mode to match the clinical need is now possible and necessary. (4) Cutaneous T cell lymphoma (CTCL) is a genetically driven cancer, whose response to ECP is due to enhanced anti‐cancer immunity. (5) ECP is a dendritic antigen‐presenting cell (DC) based therapy. (6) ECP's efficacy can now be tested in a broad array of cancers. (7) ECP's capacity to tolerize to allotransplants via processing of donor leukocytes merits expedited human investigation. (8) UVA‐8‐MOP‐impacted ECP‐induced DC are potent antigen‐specific tolerizing agents, while UVA‐8‐MOP(8‐Methoxypsoralen)‐spared ECP‐induced DC are potent antigen‐specific immunizing agents. (9) Six pilot clinical trial areas (CTCL, graft‐vs.‐host disease, ovarian carcinoma, anti‐graft cytotoxic antibodies, pemphigus vulgaris, and haplotype mismatched stem cell transplants) are advised. ACE will be an ongoing advisory group for the field, with the goal of overseeing coordinated clinical and fundamental research efforts.     

Generating automated kidney transplant biopsy reports combining molecular measurements with ensembles of machine learning classifiers

We previously reported a system for assessing rejection in kidney transplant biopsies using microarray‐based gene expression data, the Molecular Microscope^® Diagnostic System (MMDx). The present study was designed to optimize the accuracy and stability of MMDx diagnoses by replacing single machine learning classifiers with ensembles of diverse classifier methods. We also examined the use of automated report sign‐outs and the agreement between multiple human interpreters of the molecular results. Ensembles generated diagnoses that were both more accurate than the best individual classifiers, and nearly as stable as the best, consistent with expectations from the machine learning literature. Human experts had ≈93% agreement (balanced accuracy) signing out the reports, and random forest‐based automated sign‐outs showed similar levels of agreement with the human experts (92% and 94% for predicting the expert MMDx sign‐outs for T cell–mediated (TCMR) and antibody‐mediated rejection (ABMR), respectively). In most cases disagreements, whether between experts or between experts and automated sign‐outs, were in biopsies near diagnostic thresholds. Considerable disagreement with histology persisted. The balanced accuracies of MMDx sign‐outs for histology diagnoses of TCMR and ABMR were 73% and 78%, respectively. Disagreement with histology is largely due to the known noise in histology assessments (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01299168).