University of Miami

About: University of Miami is a education organization based out in Coral Gables, Florida, United States. It is known for research contribution in the topics: Population & Transplantation. The organization has 47313 authors who have published 97760 publications receiving 4043520 citations. The organization is also known as: UM & U of M.

Development of criteria for the classification and reporting of osteoarthritis: Classification of osteoarthritis of the knee

Abstract: For the purposes of classification, it should be specified whether osteoarthritis (OA) of the knee is of unknown origin (idiopathic, primary) or is related to a known medical condition or event (secondary). Clinical criteria for the classification of idiopathic OA of the knee were developed through a multicenter study group. Comparison diagnoses included rheumatoid arthritis and other painful conditions of the knee, exclusive of referred or para-articular pain. Variables from the medical history, physical examination, laboratory tests, and radiographs were used to develop sets of criteria that serve different investigative purposes. In contrast to prior criteria, these proposed criteria utilize classification trees, or algorithms.

Optical Coherence Tomography

Abstract: Optical coherence tomography (OCT) has developed rapidly since its first realisation in medicine and is currently an emerging technology in the diagnosis of skin disease. OCT is an interferometric technique that detects reflected and backscattered light from tissue and is often described as the optical analogue to ultrasound. The inherent safety of the technology allows for in vivo use of OCT in patients. The main strength of OCT is the depth resolution. In dermatology, most OCT research has turned on non-melanoma skin cancer (NMSC) and non-invasive monitoring of morphological changes in a number of skin diseases based on pattern recognition, and studies have found good agreement between OCT images and histopathological architecture. OCT has shown high accuracy in distinguishing lesions from normal skin, which is of great importance in identifying tumour borders or residual neoplastic tissue after therapy. The OCT images provide an advantageous combination of resolution and penetration depth, but specific studies of diagnostic sensitivity and specificity in dermatology are sparse. In order to improve OCT image quality and expand the potential of OCT, technical developments are necessary. It is suggested that the technology will be of particular interest to the routine follow-up of patients undergoing non-invasive therapy of malignant or premalignant keratinocyte tumours. It is speculated that the continued technological development can propel the method to a greater level of dermatological use.

You want to measure coping but your protocol's too long: consider the brief COPE.

Abstract: Studies of coping in applied settings often confront the need to minimize time demands on participants. The problem of participant response burden is exacerbated further by the fact that these studies typically are designed to test multiple hypotheses with the same sample, a strategy that entails the use of many time-consuming measures. Such research would benefit from a brief measure of coping assessing several responses known to be relevant to effective and ineffective coping. This article presents such a brief form of a previously published measure called the COPE inventory (Carver, Scheier, & Wcintraub, 1989), which has proven to be useful in health-related research. The Brief COPE omits two scales of the full COPE, reduces others to two items per scale, and adds one scale. Psychometric properties of the Brief COPE arc reported, derived from a sample of adults participating in a study of the process of recovery after Hurricane Andrew.

Guidelines for the use and interpretation of assays for monitoring autophagy (3rd edition)

Abstract: In 2008 we published the first set of guidelines for standardizing research in autophagy. Since then, research on this topic has continued to accelerate, and many new scientists have entered the field. Our knowledge base and relevant new technologies have also been expanding. Accordingly, it is important to update these guidelines for monitoring autophagy in different organisms. Various reviews have described the range of assays that have been used for this purpose. Nevertheless, there continues to be confusion regarding acceptable methods to measure autophagy, especially in multicellular eukaryotes. For example, a key point that needs to be emphasized is that there is a difference between measurements that monitor the numbers or volume of autophagic elements (e.g., autophagosomes or autolysosomes) at any stage of the autophagic process versus those that measure flux through the autophagy pathway (i.e., the complete process including the amount and rate of cargo sequestered and degraded). In particular, a block in macroautophagy that results in autophagosome accumulation must be differentiated from stimuli that increase autophagic activity, defined as increased autophagy induction coupled with increased delivery to, and degradation within, lysosomes (in most higher eukaryotes and some protists such as Dictyostelium) or the vacuole (in plants and fungi). In other words, it is especially important that investigators new to the field understand that the appearance of more autophagosomes does not necessarily equate with more autophagy. In fact, in many cases, autophagosomes accumulate because of a block in trafficking to lysosomes without a concomitant change in autophagosome biogenesis, whereas an increase in autolysosomes may reflect a reduction in degradative activity. It is worth emphasizing here that lysosomal digestion is a stage of autophagy and evaluating its competence is a crucial part of the evaluation of autophagic flux, or complete autophagy. Here, we present a set of guidelines for the selection and interpretation of methods for use by investigators who aim to examine macroautophagy and related processes, as well as for reviewers who need to provide realistic and reasonable critiques of papers that are focused on these processes. These guidelines are not meant to be a formulaic set of rules, because the appropriate assays depend in part on the question being asked and the system being used. In addition, we emphasize that no individual assay is guaranteed to be the most appropriate one in every situation, and we strongly recommend the use of multiple assays to monitor autophagy. Along these lines, because of the potential for pleiotropic effects due to blocking autophagy through genetic manipulation, it is imperative to target by gene knockout or RNA interference more than one autophagy-related protein. In addition, some individual Atg proteins, or groups of proteins, are involved in other cellular pathways implying that not all Atg proteins can be used as a specific marker for an autophagic process. In these guidelines, we consider these various methods of assessing autophagy and what information can, or cannot, be obtained from them. Finally, by discussing the merits and limits of particular assays, we hope to encourage technical innovation in the field.