Prediction of improvement in skin fibrosis in diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis: a EUSTAR analysis

OBJECTIVES Improvement of skin fibrosis is part of the natural course of diffuse cutaneous systemic sclerosis (dcSSc). Recognising those patients most likely to improve could help tailoring clinical management and cohort enrichment for clinical trials. In this study, we aimed to identify predictors for improvement of skin fibrosis in patients with dcSSc. METHODS We performed a longitudinal analysis of the European Scleroderma Trials And Research (EUSTAR) registry including patients with dcSSc, fulfilling American College of Rheumatology criteria, baseline modified Rodnan skin score (mRSS) ≥7 and follow-up mRSS at 12±2 months. The primary outcome was skin improvement (decrease in mRSS of >5 points and ≥25%) at 1 year follow-up. A respective increase in mRSS was considered progression. Candidate predictors for skin improvement were selected by expert opinion and logistic regression with bootstrap validation was applied. RESULTS From the 919 patients included, 218 (24%) improved and 95 (10%) progressed. Eleven candidate predictors for skin improvement were analysed. The final model identified high baseline mRSS and absence of tendon friction rubs as independent predictors of skin improvement. The baseline mRSS was the strongest predictor of skin improvement, independent of disease duration. An upper threshold between 18 and 25 performed best in enriching for progressors over regressors. CONCLUSIONS Patients with advanced skin fibrosis at baseline and absence of tendon friction rubs are more likely to regress in the next year than patients with milder skin fibrosis. These evidence-based data can be implemented in clinical trial design to minimise the inclusion of patients who would regress under standard of care.

CHEOPS Performance for Exomoons: The Detectability of Exomoons by Using Optimal Decision Algorithm

Many attempts have already been made to detect exomoons around transiting exoplanets, but the first confirmed discovery is still pending. The experiences that have been gathered so far allow us to better optimize future space telescopes for this challenge already during the development phase. In this paper we focus on the forthcoming CHaraterising ExOPlanet Satellite (CHEOPS), describing an optimized decision algorithm with step-by-step evaluation, and calculating the number of required transits for an exomoon detection for various planet moon configurations that can be observable by CHEOPS. We explore the most efficient way for such an observation to minimize the cost in observing time. Our study is based on PTV observations (photocentric transit timing variation) in simulated CHEOPS data, but the recipe does not depend on the actual detection method, and it can be substituted with, e.g., the photodynamical method for later applications. Using the current state-of-the-art level simulation of CHEOPS data we analyzed transit observation sets for different star planet moon configurations and performed a bootstrap analysis to determine their detection statistics. We have found that the detection limit is around an Earth-sized moon. In the case of favorable spatial configurations, systems with at least a large moon and a Neptune-sized planet, an 80% detection chance requires at least 5-6 transit observations on average. There is also a nonzero chance in the case of smaller moons, but the detection statistics deteriorate rapidly, while the necessary transit measurements increase quickly. After the CoRoT and Kepler spacecrafts, CHEOPS will be the next dedicated space telescope that will observe exoplanetary transits and characterize systems with known Doppler-planets. Although it has a smaller aperture than Kepler (the ratio of the mirror diameters is about 1/3) and is mounted with a CCD that is similar to Kepler's, it will observe brighter stars and operate with larger sampling rate; therefore, the detection limit for an exomoon can be the same as or better, which will make CHEOPS a competitive instruments in the quest for exomoons.

Standard Errors for the Blinder-Oaxaca Decomposition

The decomposition technique introduced by Blinder (1973) and Oaxaca (1973) is widely used to study outcome differences between groups. For example, the technique is commonly applied to the analysis of the gender wage gap. However, despite the procedure's frequent use, very little attention has been paid to the issue of estimating the sampling variances of the decomposition components. We therefore suggest an approach that introduces consistent variance estimators for several variants of the decomposition. The accuracy of the new estimators under ideal conditions is illustrated with the results of a Monte Carlo simulation. As a second check, the estimators are compared to bootstrap results obtained using real data. In contrast to previously proposed statistics, the new method takes into account the extra variation imposed by stochastic regressors.

PSPLINE: Stata module providing a penalized spline scatterplot smoother based on linear mixed model technology

Pspline uses xtmixed to fit a penalized spline regression and plots the smoothed function. Additional covariates can be specified to adjust the smooth and plot partial residuals.

MOREMATA: Stata module (Mata) to provide various functions

This package includes various Mata functions. kern(): various kernel functions; kint(): kernel integral functions; kdel0(): canonical bandwidth of kernel; quantile(): quantile function; median(): median; iqrange(): inter-quartile range; ecdf(): cumulative distribution function; relrank(): grade transformation; ranks(): ranks/cumulative frequencies; freq(): compute frequency counts; histogram(): produce histogram data; mgof(): multinomial goodness-of-fit tests; collapse(): summary statistics by subgroups; _collapse(): summary statistics by subgroups; gini(): Gini coefficient; sample(): draw random sample; srswr(): SRS with replacement; srswor(): SRS without replacement; upswr(): UPS with replacement; upswor(): UPS without replacement; bs(): bootstrap estimation; bs2(): bootstrap estimation; bs_report(): report bootstrap results; jk(): jackknife estimation; jk_report(): report jackknife results; subset(): obtain subsets, one at a time; composition(): obtain compositions, one by one; ncompositions(): determine number of compositions; partition(): obtain partitions, one at a time; npartitionss(): determine number of partitions; rsubset(): draw random subset; rcomposition(): draw random composition; colvar(): variance, by column; meancolvar(): mean and variance, by column; variance0(): population variance; meanvariance0(): mean and population variance; mse(): mean squared error; colmse(): mean squared error, by column; sse(): sum of squared errors; colsse(): sum of squared errors, by column; benford(): Benford distribution; cauchy(): cumulative Cauchy-Lorentz dist.; cauchyden(): Cauchy-Lorentz density; cauchytail(): reverse cumulative Cauchy-Lorentz; invcauchy(): inverse cumulative Cauchy-Lorentz; rbinomial(): generate binomial random numbers; cebinomial(): cond. expect. of binomial r.v.; root(): Brent's univariate zero finder; nrroot(): Newton-Raphson zero finder; finvert(): univariate function inverter; integrate_sr(): univariate function integration (Simpson's rule); integrate_38(): univariate function integration (Simpson's 3/8 rule); ipolate(): linear interpolation; polint(): polynomial inter-/extrapolation; plot(): Draw twoway plot; _plot(): Draw twoway plot; panels(): identify nested panel structure; _panels(): identify panel sizes; npanels(): identify number of panels; nunique(): count number of distinct values; nuniqrows(): count number of unique rows; isconstant(): whether matrix is constant; nobs(): number of observations; colrunsum(): running sum of each column; linbin(): linear binning; fastlinbin(): fast linear binning; exactbin(): exact binning; makegrid(): equally spaced grid points; cut(): categorize data vector; posof(): find element in vector; which(): positions of nonzero elements; locate(): search an ordered vector; hunt(): consecutive search; cond(): matrix conditional operator; expand(): duplicate single rows/columns; _expand(): duplicate rows/columns in place; repeat(): duplicate contents as a whole; _repeat(): duplicate contents in place; unorder2(): stable version of unorder(); jumble2(): stable version of jumble(); _jumble2(): stable version of _jumble(); pieces(): break string into pieces; npieces(): count number of pieces; _npieces(): count number of pieces; invtokens(): reverse of tokens(); realofstr(): convert string into real; strexpand(): expand string argument; matlist(): display a (real) matrix; insheet(): read spreadsheet file; infile(): read free-format file; outsheet(): write spreadsheet file; callf(): pass optional args to function; callf_setup(): setup for mm_callf().

SPECTRAL DOMAIN-OPTICAL COHERENCE TOMOGRAPHY IMAGE CONTRAST AND BACKGROUND COLOR SETTINGS INFLUENCE IDENTIFICATION OF RETINAL STRUCTURES.

PURPOSE To evaluate image contrast and color setting on assessment of retinal structures and morphology in spectral-domain optical coherence tomography. METHODS Two hundred and forty-eight Spectralis spectral-domain optical coherence tomography B-scans of 62 patients were analyzed by 4 readers. B-scans were extracted in 4 settings: W + N = white background with black image at normal contrast 9; W + H = white background with black image at maximum contrast 16; B + N = black background with white image at normal contrast 12; B + H = black background with white image at maximum contrast 16. Readers analyzed the images to identify morphologic features. Interreader correlation was calculated. Differences between Fleiss-kappa correlation coefficients were examined using bootstrap method. Any setting with significantly higher correlation coefficient was deemed superior for evaluating specific features. RESULTS Correlation coefficients differed among settings. No single setting was superior for all respective spectral-domain optical coherence tomography parameters (P = 0.3773). Some variables showed no differences among settings. Hard exudates and subretinal fluid were best seen with B + H (κ = 0.46, P = 0.0237 and κ = 0.78, P = 0.002). Microaneurysms were best seen with W + N (κ = 0.56, P = 0.025). Vitreomacular interface, enhanced transmission signal, and epiretinal membrane were best identified using all color/contrast settings together (κ = 0.44, P = 0.042, κ = 0.57, P = 0.01, and κ = 0.62, P ≤ 0.0001). CONCLUSION Contrast and background affect the evaluation of retinal structures on spectral-domain optical coherence tomography images. No single setting was superior for all features, though certain changes were best seen with specific settings.