EXPERT-SYSTEM SUPPORT USING BAYESIAN BELIEF NETWORKS IN THE DIAGNOSIS OF FINE-NEEDLE ASPIRATION BIOPSY SPECIMENS OF THE BREAST

Aim-To develop an expert system model for the diagnosis of fine needle aspiration cytology (FNAC) of the breast.

Methods-Knowledge and uncertainty were represented in the form of a Bayesian belief network which permitted the combination of diagnostic evidence in a cumulative manner and provided a final probability for the possible diagnostic outcomes. The network comprised 10 cytological features (evidence nodes), each independently linked to the diagnosis (decision node) by a conditional probability matrix. The system was designed to be interactive in that the cytopathologist entered evidence into the network in the form of likelihood ratios for the outcomes at each evidence node.

Results-The efficiency of the network was tested on a series of 40 breast FNAC specimens. The highest diagnostic probability provided by the network agreed with the cytopathologists' diagnosis in 100% of cases for the assessment of discrete, benign, and malignant aspirates. A typical probably benign cases were given probabilities in favour of a benign diagnosis. Suspicious cases tended to have similar probabilities for both diagnostic outcomes and so, correctly, could not be assigned as benign or malignant. A closer examination of cumulative belief graphs for the diagnostic sequence of each case provided insight into the diagnostic process, and quantitative data which improved the identification of suspicious cases.

Conclusion-The further development of such a system will have three important roles in breast cytodiagnosis: (1) to aid the cytologist in making a more consistent and objective diagnosis; (2) to provide a teaching tool on breast cytological diagnosis for the non-expert; and (3) it is the first stage in the development of a system capable of automated diagnosis through the use of expert system machine vision.

Anatomy and Neurophysiology of Coughing: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

Bronchopulmonary C-fibers and a subset of mechanically sensitive, acid-sensitive myelinated sensory nerves play essential roles in regulating cough. These vagal sensory nerves terminate primarily in the larynx, trachea, carina and large intrapulmonary bronchi. Other bronchopulmonary sensory nerves, sensory nerves innervating other viscera as well as somatosensory nerves innervating the chest wall, diaphragm and abdominal musculature regulate cough patterning and cough sensitivity. The responsiveness and morphology of the airway vagal sensory nerve subtypes and the extrapulmonary sensory nerves that regulate coughing are described. The brainstem and higher brain control systems that process this sensory information are complex, but our current understanding of them is considerable and increasing. The relevance of these neural systems to clinical phenomena, such as urge to cough and psychological methods for treatment of dystussia, is high and modern imaging methods have revealed potential neural substrates for some features of cough in the human.

Expert opinion on the cough hypersensitivity syndrome in respiratory medicine

In 2011, a European Respiratory Society Task Force embarked on a process to determine the position and clinical relevance of the cough hypersensitivity syndrome, a disorder characterised by troublesome coughing often triggered by low levels of thermal, mechanical or chemical exposure, in the management of patients with chronic cough. A 21-component questionnaire was developed by an iterative process supported by a literature review. 44 key opinion leaders in respiratory medicine were selected and interviewed as to their opinions. There was a high degree of unanimity in the responses obtained, with all opinion leaders supporting the concept of cough hypersensitivity as a clinically useful paradigm. The classic stratification of cough into asthmatic, rhinitic and reflux-related phenotypes was supported. Significant disparity of opinion was seen in the response to two questions concerning the therapy of chronic cough. First, the role of acid suppression in reflux cough was questioned. Secondly, the opinion leaders were split as to whether a trial of oral steroids was indicated to establish a diagnosis of eosinophilic cough. The cough hypersensitivity syndrome was clearly endorsed by the opinion leaders as a valid and useful concept. They considered that support of patients with chronic cough was inadequate and the Task Force recommends that further work is urgently required in this neglected area.

Overview of the Management of Cough: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

This overview will demonstrate that cough is a common and potentially expensive health-care problem. Improvement in the quality of care of those with cough has been the focus of study for a variety of disciplines in medicine. The purpose of the Cough Guideline and Expert Panel is to synthesize current knowledge in a form that will aid clinical decision-making for the diagnosis and management of cough across disciplines and also identify gaps in knowledge and treatment options.

Respiratory syncytial virus, an ongoing medical dilemma: an expert commentary on respiratory syncytial virus prophylactic and therapeutic pharmaceuticals currently in clinical trials

As the most important viral cause of severe respiratory disease in infants and increasing recognition as important in the elderly and immunocompromised, respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) is responsible for a massive health burden worldwide. Prophylactic antibodies were successfully developed against RSV. However, their use is restricted to a small group of infants considered at high risk of severe RSV disease. There is still no specific therapeutics or vaccines to combat RSV. As such, it remains a major unmet medical need for most individuals. The World Health Organisations International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (WHO ICTRP) and PubMed were used to identify and review all RSV vaccine, prophylactic and therapeutic candidates currently in clinical trials. This review presents an expert commentary on all RSV-specific prophylactic and therapeutic candidates that have entered clinical trials since 2008.

Tools for Assessing Outcomes in Studies of Chronic Cough: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND: Since the publication of the 2006 American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) cough guidelines, a variety of tools has been developed or further refined for assessing cough. The purpose of the present committee was to evaluate instruments used by investigators performing clinical research on chronic cough. The specific aims were to (1) assess the performance of tools designed to measure cough frequency, severity, and impact in adults, adolescents, and children with chronic cough and (2) make recommendations or suggestions related to these findings.

METHODS: By following the CHEST methodologic guidelines, the CHEST Expert Cough Panel based its recommendations and suggestions on a recently published comparative effectiveness review commissioned by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, a corresponding summary published in CHEST, and an updated systematic review through November 2013. Recommendations or suggestions based on these data were discussed, graded, and voted on during a meeting of the Expert Cough Panel.

RESULTS: We recommend for adults, adolescents (≥ 14 years of age), and children complaining of chronic cough that validated and reliable health-related quality-of-life (QoL) questionnaires be used as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough, such as the Leicester Cough Questionnaire and the Cough-Specific Quality-of-Life Questionnaire in adult and adolescent patients and the Parent Cough-Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire in children. We recommend acoustic cough counting to assess cough frequency but not cough severity. Limited data exist regarding the performance of visual analog scales, numeric rating scales, and tussigenic challenges.

CONCLUSIONS: Validated and reliable cough-specific health-related QoL questionnaires are recommended as the measurement of choice to assess the impact of cough on patients. How they compare is yet to be determined. When used, the reporting of cough severity by visual analog or numeric rating scales should be standardized. Previously validated QoL questionnaires or other cough assessments should not be modified unless the new version has been shown to be reliable and valid. Finally, in research settings, tussigenic challenges play a role in understanding mechanisms of cough.

Methodologies for the Development of the Management of Cough: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND: This series of guidance documents on cough, which will be published over time, is a hybrid of two processes: (1) evidence-based guidelines and (2) trustworthy consensus statements based on a robust and transparent process.

METHODS: The CHEST Guidelines Oversight Committee selected a nonconflicted Panel Chair and jointly assembled an international panel of experts in each clinical area with few, if any, conflicts of interest. PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome)-based key questions and parameters of eligibility were developed for each clinical topic to inform the comprehensive literature search. Existing guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies were assessed for relevance and quality. Data elements were extracted into evidence tables and synthesized to provide summary statistics. These, in turn, are presented to support the evidence-based graded recommendations. A highly structured consensus-based Delphi approach was used to provide expert advice on all guidance statements. Transparency of process was documented.

RESULTS: Evidence-based guideline recommendations and consensus-based suggestions were carefully crafted to provide direction to health-care providers and investigators who treat and/or study patients with cough. Manuscripts and tables summarize the evidence in each clinical area supporting the recommendations and suggestions.

CONCLUSIONS: The resulting guidance statements are based on a rigorous methodology and transparency of process. Unless otherwise stated, the recommendations and suggestions meet the guidelines for trustworthiness developed by the Institute of Medicine and can be applied with confidence by physicians, nurses, other health-care providers, investigators, and patients.

Somatic Cough Syndrome (Previously Referred to as Psychogenic Cough) and Tic Cough (Previously Referred to as Habit Cough) in Adults and Children: CHEST Guideline and Expert Panel Report

BACKGROUND: We conducted a systematic review on the management of psychogenic cough, habit cough, and tic cough to update the recommendations and suggestions of the 2006 guideline on this topic.

METHODS: We followed the American College of Chest Physicians (CHEST) methodologic guidelines and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation framework. The Expert Cough Panel based their recommendations on data from the systematic review, patients' values and preferences, and the clinical context. Final grading was reached by consensus according to Delphi methodology.

RESULTS: The results of the systematic review revealed only low-quality evidence to support how to define or diagnose psychogenic or habit cough with no validated diagnostic criteria. With respect to treatment, low-quality evidence allowed the committee to only suggest therapy for children believed to have psychogenic cough. Such therapy might consist of nonpharmacologic trials of hypnosis or suggestion therapy, or combinations of reassurance, counseling, and referral to a psychologist, psychotherapy, and appropriate psychotropic medications. Based on multiple resources and contemporary psychologic, psychiatric, and neurologic criteria (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition and tic disorder guidelines), the committee suggests that the terms psychogenic and habit cough are out of date and inaccurate.

CONCLUSIONS: Compared with the 2006 CHEST Cough Guidelines, the major change in suggestions is that the terms psychogenic and habit cough be abandoned in favor of somatic cough syndrome and tic cough, respectively, even though the evidence to do so at this time is of low quality.