Comparative evaluation of serologic tests for celiac disease: a European initiative toward standardization.

BACKGROUND: Serologic methods have been used widely to test for celiac disease and have gained importance in diagnostic definition and in new epidemiologic findings. However, there is no standardization, and there are no reference protocols and materials. METHODS: The European working group on Serological Screening for Celiac Disease has defined robust noncommercial test protocols for immunoglobulin (Ig)G and IgA gliadin antibodies and for IgA autoantibodies against endomysium and tissue transglutaminase. Standard curves were linear in the decisive range, and intra-assay variation coefficients were less than 5% to 10%. Calibration was performed with a group reference serum. Joint cutoff limits were used. Seven laboratories took part in the final collaborative study on 252 randomized sera classified by histology (103 pediatric and adult patients with active celiac disease, 89 disease control subjects, and 60 blood donors). RESULTS: IgA autoantibodies against endomysium and tissue transglutaminase rendered superior sensitivity (90% and 93%, respectively) and specificity (99% and 95%, respectively) over IgA and IgG gliadin antibodies. Tissue transglutaminase antibody testing showed superior receiver operating characteristic performance compared with gliadin antibodies. The K values for interlaboratory reproducibility showed superiority for IgA endomysium (0.93) in comparison with tissue transglutaminase antibodies (0.83) and gliadin antibodies (0.82 for IgG, 0.62 for IgA). CONCLUSIONS: Basic criteria of standardization and quality assessment must be fulfilled by any given test protocol proposed for serologic investigation of celiac disease. The working group has produced robust test protocols and reference materials available for standardization to further improve reliability of serologic testing for celiac disease.

Multi-touch and keyboard/mouse devices comparison in an information search task: influence on cognitive load and task engagement

Nowadays multi-touch devices (MTD) can be found in all kind of contexts. In the learning context, MTD availability leads many teachers to use them in their class room, to support the use of the devices by students, or to assume that it will enhance the learning processes. Despite the raising interest for MTD, few researches studying the impact in term of performance or the suitability of the technology for the learning context exist. However, even if the use of touch-sensitive screens rather than a mouse and keyboard seems to be the easiest and fastest way to realize common learning tasks (as for instance web surfing behaviour), we notice that the use of MTD may lead to a less favourable outcome. The complexity to generate an accurate fingers gesture and the split attention it requires (multi-tasking effect) make the use of gestures to interact with a touch-sensitive screen more difficult compared to the traditional laptop use. More precisely, it is hypothesized that efficacy and efficiency decreases, as well as the available cognitive resources making the users’ task engagement more difficult. Furthermore, the presented study takes into account the moderator effect of previous experiences with MTD. Two key factors of technology adoption theories were included in the study: familiarity and self-efficacy with the technology.Sixty university students, invited to a usability lab, are asked to perform information search tasks on an online encyclopaedia. The different tasks were created in order to execute the most commonly used mouse actions (e.g. right click, left click, scrolling, zooming, key words encoding…). Two different conditions were created: (1) MTD use and (2) laptop use (with keyboard and mouse). The cognitive load, self-efficacy, familiarity and task engagement scales were adapted to the MTD context. Furthermore, the eye-tracking measurement would offer additional information about user behaviours and their cognitive load.Our study aims to clarify some important aspects towards the usage of MTD and the added value compared to a laptop in a student learning context. More precisely, the outcomes will enhance the suitability of MTD with the processes at stakes, the role of previous knowledge in the adoption process, as well as some interesting insights into the user experience with such devices.

Diagnosis of tuberculosis: update of interferon gamma release tests in clinical practice

info:eu-repo/semantics/nonPublished

Exploring the benefits of using multi-touch devices in performing information search tasks: An analysis in terms of performance, cognitive load and task engagement

Over the last decade, multi-touch devices (MTD) have spread in a range of contexts. In the learning context, MTD accessibility leads more and more teachers to use them in their classroom, assuming that it will improve the learning activities. Despite a growing interest, only few studies have focused on the impacts of MTD use in terms of performance and suitability in a learning context.However, even if the use of touch-sensitive screens rather than a mouse and keyboard seems to be the easiest and fastest way to realize common learning tasks (as for instance web surfing), we notice that the use of MTD may lead to a less favorable outcome. More precisely, tasks that require users to generate complex and/or less common gestures may increase extrinsic cognitive load and impair performance, especially for intrinsically complex tasks. It is hypothesized that task and gesture complexity will affect users’ cognitive resources and decrease task efficacy and efficiency. Because MTD are supposed to be more appealing, it is assumed that it will also impact cognitive absorption. The present study also takes into account user’s prior knowledge concerning MTD use and gestures by using experience with MTD as a moderator. Sixty university students were asked to perform information search tasks on an online encyclopedia. Tasks were set up so that users had to generate the most commonly used mouse actions (e.g. left/right click, scrolling, zooming, text encoding…). Two conditions were created: MTD use and laptop use (with mouse and keyboard) in order to make a comparison between the two devices. An eye tracking device was used to measure user’s attention and cognitive load. Our study sheds light on some important aspects towards the use of MTD and the added value compared to a laptop in a student learning context.

Basophil activation tests for the diagnosis of food allergy in children.

BACKGROUND: Positive skin prick tests (SPT) for food allergens and specific IgE (sIgE) in serum indicate sensitization but do not enable distinction between sensitized but tolerant and clinically allergic patients. OBJECTIVE: Herein, we evaluate the clinical relevance of basophil activation tests (BATs) for peanut or egg allergy diagnosis. METHODS: Thirty-two peanut-allergic, 14 peanut-sensitized (sIgE(+) and/or SPT(+) to peanuts) but tolerant children and 29 controls with no history of an adverse reaction to peanuts were included. Similarly, 31 egg-allergic, 14 egg-sensitized children (sIgE(+) and/or SPT(+) to egg white) and 22 controls were studied. Flow cytometric analysis of CD63 expression or CD203c upregulation on basophils and the production of leukotrienes (LT) were performed in response to an in vitro crude peanut extract or ovalbumin (OVA) challenge. RESULTS: After in vitro peanut challenge, the basophils from peanut-allergic children showed significantly higher levels of activation than those from controls (P<0.001). After OVA challenge, a similar distinction (P<0.001) was observed between egg-allergics and controls. Interestingly, the majority of egg- or peanut-sensitized children failed to activate basophils, respectively, in response to OVA and peanut challenge. The sensitivity of the CD63, CD203c and LT assay was 86.7%, 89.5% and 76.0% with a specificity of 94.1%, 97.1% and 94.6% for peanut allergy diagnosis. The corresponding performances of BATs applied to egg allergy diagnosis were 88.9%, 62.5% and 77.8% for the sensitivity and 100%, 96.4% and 96.4% for the specificity. CONCLUSION: Neither conventional tests nor BATs are sensitive and specific enough to predict food allergy accurately. However, BATs may helpfully complete conventional tests, especially SPT, allowing improved discrimination between allergic and non-allergic individuals.