University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey

About: University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Pregnancy. The organization has 14634 authors who have published 19610 publications receiving 1041794 citations.

Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) and T-cell responses: what we do and don't know

Abstract: Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF) is an important hematopoietic growth factor and immune modulator. GM-CSF also has profound effects on the functional activities of various circulating leukocytes. It is produced by a variety of cell types including T cells, macrophages, endothelial cells and fibroblasts upon receiving immune stimuli. Although GM-CSF is produced locally, it can act in a paracrine fashion to recruit circulating neutrophils, monocytes and lymphocytes to enhance their functions in host defense. Recent intensive investigations are centered on the application of GM-CSF as an immune adjuvant for its ability to increase dendritic cell (DC) maturation and function as well as macrophage activity. It is used clinically to treat neutropenia in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, in AIDS patients during therapy, and in patients after bone marrow transplantation. Interestingly, the hematopoietic system of GM-CSF-deficient mice appears to be normal; the most significant changes are in some specific T cell responses. Although molecular cloning of GM-CSF was carried out using cDNA library of T cells and it is well known that the T cells produce GM-CSF after activation, there is a lack of systematic investigation of this cytokine in production by T cells and its effect on T cell function. In this article, we will focus mainly on the immunobiology of GM-CSF in T cells.

International recommendations for the assessment of autoantibodies to cellular antigens referred to as anti-nuclear antibodies

Abstract: Anti-nuclear antibodies (ANA) are fundamental for the diagnosis of autoimmune diseases, and have been determined by indirect immunofluorescence assay (IIFA) for decades. As the demand for ANA testing increased, alternative techniques were developed challenging the classic IIFA. These alternative platforms differ in their antigen profiles, sensitivity and specificity, raising uncertainties regarding standardisation and interpretation of incongruent results. Therefore, an international group of experts has created recommendations for ANA testing by different methods. Two groups of experts participated in this initiative. The European autoimmunity standardization initiative representing 15 European countries and the International Union of Immunologic Societies/World Health Organization/Arthritis Foundation/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention autoantibody standardising committee. A three-step process followed by a Delphi exercise with closed voting was applied. Twenty-five recommendations for determining ANA (1-13), anti-double stranded DNA antibodies (14-18), specific antibodies (19-23) and validation of methods (24-25) were created. Significant differences between experts were observed regarding recommendations 24-25 (p<0.03). Here, we formulated recommendations for the assessment and interpretation of ANA and associated antibodies. Notably, the roles of IIFA as a reference method, and the importance of defining nuclear and cytoplasmic staining, were emphasised, while the need to incorporate alternative automated methods was acknowledged. Various approaches to overcome discrepancies between methods were suggested of which an improved bench-to-bedside communication is of the utmost importance. These recommendations are based on current knowledge and can enable harmonisation of local algorithms for testing and evaluation of ANA and related autoantibodies. Last but not least, new more appropriate terminologies have been suggested.

Clinical calibration of DSM-IV diagnoses in the World Mental Health (WMH) version of the World Health Organization (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview (WMH-CIDI)

Abstract: An overview is presented of the rationale, design, and analysis plan for the WMH-CIDI clinical calibration studies. As no clinical gold standard assessment is available for the DSM-IV disorders assessed in the WMH-CIDI, we adopted the goal of calibration rather than validation; that is, we asked whether WMH-CIDI diagnoses are 'consistent' with diagnoses based on a state-of-the-art clinical research diagnostic interview (SCID; Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV) rather than whether they are 'correct'. Consistency is evaluated both at the aggregate level (consistency of WMH-CIDI and SCID prevalence estimates) and at the individual level (consistency of WMH-CIDI and SCID diagnostic classifications). Although conventional statistics (sensitivity, specificity, Cohen's kappa) are used to describe diagnostic consistency, an argument is made for considering the area under the receiver operator curve (AUC) to be a more useful general-purpose measure of consistency. In addition, more detailed analyses are used to evaluate consistency on a substantive level. These analyses begin by estimating prediction equations in a clinical calibration subsample, with WMH-CIDI symptom-level data used to predict SCID diagnoses, and using the coefficients from these equations to assign predicted probabilities of SCID diagnoses to each respondent in the remainder of the sample. Substantive analyses then investigate whether estimates of prevalence and associations when based on WMH-CIDI diagnoses are consistent with those based on predicted SCID diagnoses. Multiple imputation is used to adjust estimated standard errors for the imprecision introduced by SCID diagnoses being imputed under a model rather than measured directly. A brief illustration of this approach is presented in comparing the precision of SCID and predicted SCID estimates of prevalence and correlates under varying sample designs.

Trial of Short-Course Antimicrobial Therapy for Intraabdominal Infection

Abstract: Surgical-site infection, recurrent intraabdominal infection, or death occurred in 56 of 257 patients in the experimental group (21.8%), as compared with 58 of 260 patients in the control group (22.3%) (absolute difference, −0.5 percentage point; 95% confidence interval [CI], −7.0 to 8.0; P = 0.92). The median duration of antibiotic therapy was 4.0 days (interquartile range, 4.0 to 5.0) in the experimental group, as compared with 8.0 days (interquartile range, 5.0 to 10.0) in the control group (absolute difference, −4.0 days; 95% CI, −4.7 to −3.3; P<0.001). No signifi cant between-group differences were found in the individual rates of the components of the primary outcome or in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS In patients with intraabdominal infections who had undergone an adequate sourcecontrol procedure, the outcomes after fixed-duration antibiotic therapy (approximately 4 days) were similar to those after a longer course of antibiotics (approximately 8 days) that extended until after the resolution of physiological abnormalities. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health; STOP-IT ClinicalTrials .gov number, NCT00657566.)