Genomic testing may be used to identify risk factors for common disorders, although the clinical utility of such testing is unclear. Genetic and

genomic tests may raise new ethical, legal, and social issues, some of which may be addressed by existing genetic nondiscrimination legislation, but which also must be addressed in the course of genetic counseling. The purpose of this article is to assist physicians in recognizing where new approaches to genetic and genomic testing may be applied clinically and in being aware of the principles of interpretation of test results. JAMA. 2013;309(14):1511-1521 www.jama.com”
“The main goal in the treatment of major depressive disorder (MDD) is to achieve remission, defined as the resolution of symptoms and the return to normal levels Adriamycin mw of functionality. However, the clinical assessment of remission is usually merely based on scores of symptomatic rating scales. One of the most widely used scales to measure remission is the HAM-D(17), in which remission is defined as a score <= 7. Nevertheless, several studies have shown that this cutoff could be too high when also functioning

is considered. This is a post-hoc analysis of a 6-month prospective study, performed over a sample of 292 CA4P in vitro Spanish patients with MDD, in order to find the optimal cutoff in the HAM-D17 scale, considering normal levels of functionality, evaluated by the SOFAS: by means of plotting Receiver Operating Characteristics (ROC) curves. Our results show that a score of <= 5 maximized both sensitivity and specificity for identifying normal levels of functionality with respect to other scores, and thus agree with previous works, which suggest that a cutoff <= 7 might be too high to consider remission in patients with MDD, when normal levels of functioning are taken into account. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved.”
“Objective. To develop and validate a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) method of assessment

of joint space narrowing (JSN) in rheumatoid arthritis (RA).\n\nMethods. Phase A: JSN was this website scored 0-4 on MR images of 5 RA patients and 3 controls at 15 wrist sites and 2nd-5th metacarpophalangeal (MCP) joints by 8 readers (7 once, one twice), using a preliminary scoring system. Phase B: Image review, discussion, and consensus on JSN definition, and revised scoring system. Phase C: MR images of 15 RA patients and 4 controls were scored using revised system by 5 readers (4 once, one twice), and results compared with radiographs [Sharp-van der Heijde (SvdH) method].\n\nResults. Phase A: Intraobserver agreement: intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) = 0.99; smallest detectable difference (SDD, for mean of readings) = 2.8 JSN units (4.9% of observed maximal score). Interobserver agreement: ICC = 0.93; SDD = 6.4 JSN units (9.9%).