MyMedR

Displaying publications 81 - 86 of 86 in total

Abstract:

Sort:

IDRiD: Diabetic Retinopathy - Segmentation and Grading Challenge

Porwal P, Pachade S, Kokare M, Deshmukh G, Son J, Bae W, et al.

Med Image Anal, 2020 01;59:101561.
PMID: 31671320 DOI: 10.1016/j.media.2019.101561

Diabetic Retinopathy (DR) is the most common cause of avoidable vision loss, predominantly affecting the working-age population across the globe. Screening for DR, coupled with timely consultation and treatment, is a globally trusted policy to avoid vision loss. However, implementation of DR screening programs is challenging due to the scarcity of medical professionals able to screen a growing global diabetic population at risk for DR. Computer-aided disease diagnosis in retinal image analysis could provide a sustainable approach for such large-scale screening effort. The recent scientific advances in computing capacity and machine learning approaches provide an avenue for biomedical scientists to reach this goal. Aiming to advance the state-of-the-art in automatic DR diagnosis, a grand challenge on "Diabetic Retinopathy - Segmentation and Grading" was organized in conjunction with the IEEE International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging (ISBI - 2018). In this paper, we report the set-up and results of this challenge that is primarily based on Indian Diabetic Retinopathy Image Dataset (IDRiD). There were three principal sub-challenges: lesion segmentation, disease severity grading, and localization of retinal landmarks and segmentation. These multiple tasks in this challenge allow to test the generalizability of algorithms, and this is what makes it different from existing ones. It received a positive response from the scientific community with 148 submissions from 495 registrations effectively entered in this challenge. This paper outlines the challenge, its organization, the dataset used, evaluation methods and results of top-performing participating solutions. The top-performing approaches utilized a blend of clinical information, data augmentation, and an ensemble of models. These findings have the potential to enable new developments in retinal image analysis and image-based DR screening in particular.
Fulltext Rationale, Design and Baseline Characteristics of Participants in the Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) Trial

Bosch J, Eikelboom JW, Connolly SJ, Bruns NC, Lanius V, Yuan F, et al.

Can J Cardiol, 2017 08;33(8):1027-1035.
PMID: 28754388 DOI: 10.1016/j.cjca.2017.06.001

BACKGROUND: Long-term aspirin prevents vascular events but is only modestly effective. Rivaroxaban alone or in combination with aspirin might be more effective than aspirin alone for vascular prevention in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) or peripheral artery disease (PAD). Rivaroxaban as well as aspirin increase upper gastrointestinal (GI) bleeding and this might be prevented by proton pump inhibitor therapy.
METHODS: Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies (COMPASS) is a double-blind superiority trial comparing rivaroxaban 2.5 mg twice daily combined with aspirin 100 mg once daily or rivaroxaban 5 mg twice daily vs aspirin 100 mg once daily for prevention of myocardial infarction, stroke, or cardiovascular death in patients with stable CAD or PAD. Patients not taking a proton pump inhibitor were also randomized, using a partial factorial design, to pantoprazole 40 mg once daily or placebo. The trial was designed to have at least 90% power to detect a 20% reduction in each of the rivaroxaban treatment arms compared with aspirin and to detect a 50% reduction in upper GI complications with pantoprazole compared with placebo.
RESULTS: Between February 2013 and May 2016, we recruited 27,395 participants from 602 centres in 33 countries; 17,598 participants were included in the pantoprazole vs placebo comparison. At baseline, the mean age was 68.2 years, 22.0% were female, 90.6% had CAD, and 27.3% had PAD.
CONCLUSIONS: COMPASS will provide information on the efficacy and safety of rivaroxaban, alone or in combination with aspirin, in the long-term management of patients with stable CAD or PAD, and on the efficacy and safety of pantoprazole in preventing upper GI complications in patients receiving antithrombotic therapy.
Fulltext Call to Action: SARS-CoV-2 and CerebrovAscular DisordErs (CASCADE)

Abootalebi S, Aertker BM, Andalibi MS, Asdaghi N, Aykac O, Azarpazhooh MR, et al.

J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis, 2020 Sep;29(9):104938.
PMID: 32807412 DOI: 10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2020.104938

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: The novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-Cov-2), now named coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), may change the risk of stroke through an enhanced systemic inflammatory response, hypercoagulable state, and endothelial damage in the cerebrovascular system. Moreover, due to the current pandemic, some countries have prioritized health resources towards COVID-19 management, making it more challenging to appropriately care for other potentially disabling and fatal diseases such as stroke. The aim of this study is to identify and describe changes in stroke epidemiological trends before, during, and after the COVID-19 pandemic.
METHODS: This is an international, multicenter, hospital-based study on stroke incidence and outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic. We will describe patterns in stroke management, stroke hospitalization rate, and stroke severity, subtype (ischemic/hemorrhagic), and outcomes (including in-hospital mortality) in 2020 during COVID-19 pandemic, comparing them with the corresponding data from 2018 and 2019, and subsequently 2021. We will also use an interrupted time series (ITS) analysis to assess the change in stroke hospitalization rates before, during, and after COVID-19, in each participating center.
CONCLUSION: The proposed study will potentially enable us to better understand the changes in stroke care protocols, differential hospitalization rate, and severity of stroke, as it pertains to the COVID-19 pandemic. Ultimately, this will help guide clinical-based policies surrounding COVID-19 and other similar global pandemics to ensure that management of cerebrovascular comorbidity is appropriately prioritized during the global crisis. It will also guide public health guidelines for at-risk populations to reduce risks of complications from such comorbidities.
Erratum to "The histology of ovarian cancer: Worldwide distribution and implications for international survival comparisons (CONCORD-2)" [Gynecol. Oncol. 144 (2017) 405-413]

Matz M, Coleman MP, Sant M, Chirlaque MD, Visser O, Gore M, et al.

Gynecol Oncol, 2017 Jul 05.
PMID: 28687170 DOI: 10.1016/j.ygyno.2017.06.032
Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

Klionsky DJ, Abdelmohsen K, Abe A, Abedin MJ, Abeliovich H, Acevedo Arozena A, et al.

Autophagy, 2016;12(1):1-222.
PMID: 26799652 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2015.1100356
Fulltext Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (4th edition)1

Klionsky DJ, Abdel-Aziz AK, Abdelfatah S, Abdellatif M, Abdoli A, Abel S, et al.

Autophagy, 2021 Jan;17(1):1-382.
PMID: 33634751 DOI: 10.1080/15548627.2020.1797280

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.