Background: The optimal screening interval for diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains controversial. This study aimed to develop a risk algorithm to predict the individual risk of referable sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) in a mainly Chinese population and to provide evidence for risk-based screening intervals. Methods: The retrospective cohort data from 117,418 subjects who received systematic DR screening in Hong Kong between 2010 and 2016 were included to develop and validate the risk algorithm using a parametric survival model. The risk algorithm can be used to predict the individual risk of STDR within a specific time interval, or the time to reach a specific risk margin and thus to allocate a screening interval. The calibration performance was assessed by comparing the cumulative STDR events versus predicted risk over 2 years, and discrimination by using receiver operative characteristics (ROC) curve. Results: Duration of diabetes, glycosylated hemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, presence of chronic kidney disease, diabetes medication, and age were included in the risk algorithm. The validation of prediction performance showed that there was no significant difference between predicted and observed STDR risks in males (5.6% vs. 5.1%, P=0.724) or females (4.8% vs. 4.6%, P=0.099). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.81) for males and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.83) for females. Conclusion The risk algorithm has good prediction performance for referable STDR. Using a risk-based screening interval allows us to allocate screening visits disproportionally more to those at higher risk, while reducing the frequency of screening of lower risk people.

Background: The optimal screening interval for diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains controversial. This study aimed to develop a risk algorithm to predict the individual risk of referable sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) in a mainly Chinese population and to provide evidence for risk-based screening intervals. Methods: The retrospective cohort data from 117,418 subjects who received systematic DR screening in Hong Kong between 2010 and 2016 were included to develop and validate the risk algorithm using a parametric survival model. The risk algorithm can be used to predict the individual risk of STDR within a specific time interval, or the time to reach a specific risk margin and thus to allocate a screening interval. The calibration performance was assessed by comparing the cumulative STDR events versus predicted risk over 2 years, and discrimination by using receiver operative characteristics (ROC) curve. Results: Duration of diabetes, glycosylated hemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, presence of chronic kidney disease, diabetes medication, and age were included in the risk algorithm. The validation of prediction performance showed that there was no significant difference between predicted and observed STDR risks in males (5.6% vs. 5.1%, P=0.724) or females (4.8% vs. 4.6%, P=0.099). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.81) for males and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.83) for females. Conclusion The risk algorithm has good prediction performance for referable STDR. Using a risk-based screening interval allows us to allocate screening visits disproportionally more to those at higher risk, while reducing the frequency of screening of lower risk people.

Background: The optimal screening interval for diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains controversial. This study aimed to develop a risk algorithm to predict the individual risk of referable sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) in a mainly Chinese population and to provide evidence for risk-based screening intervals. Methods: The retrospective cohort data from 117,418 subjects who received systematic DR screening in Hong Kong between 2010 and 2016 were included to develop and validate the risk algorithm using a parametric survival model. The risk algorithm can be used to predict the individual risk of STDR within a specific time interval, or the time to reach a specific risk margin and thus to allocate a screening interval. The calibration performance was assessed by comparing the cumulative STDR events versus predicted risk over 2 years, and discrimination by using receiver operative characteristics (ROC) curve. Results: Duration of diabetes, glycosylated hemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, presence of chronic kidney disease, diabetes medication, and age were included in the risk algorithm. The validation of prediction performance showed that there was no significant difference between predicted and observed STDR risks in males (5.6% vs. 5.1%, P=0.724) or females (4.8% vs. 4.6%, P=0.099). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.81) for males and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.83) for females. Conclusion The risk algorithm has good prediction performance for referable STDR. Using a risk-based screening interval allows us to allocate screening visits disproportionally more to those at higher risk, while reducing the frequency of screening of lower risk people.

Background: The optimal screening interval for diabetic retinopathy (DR) remains controversial. This study aimed to develop a risk algorithm to predict the individual risk of referable sight-threatening diabetic retinopathy (STDR) in a mainly Chinese population and to provide evidence for risk-based screening intervals. Methods: The retrospective cohort data from 117,418 subjects who received systematic DR screening in Hong Kong between 2010 and 2016 were included to develop and validate the risk algorithm using a parametric survival model. The risk algorithm can be used to predict the individual risk of STDR within a specific time interval, or the time to reach a specific risk margin and thus to allocate a screening interval. The calibration performance was assessed by comparing the cumulative STDR events versus predicted risk over 2 years, and discrimination by using receiver operative characteristics (ROC) curve. Results: Duration of diabetes, glycosylated hemoglobin, systolic blood pressure, presence of chronic kidney disease, diabetes medication, and age were included in the risk algorithm. The validation of prediction performance showed that there was no significant difference between predicted and observed STDR risks in males (5.6% vs. 5.1%, P=0.724) or females (4.8% vs. 4.6%, P=0.099). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.78 to 0.81) for males and 0.81 (95% CI, 0.79 to 0.83) for females. Conclusion The risk algorithm has good prediction performance for referable STDR. Using a risk-based screening interval allows us to allocate screening visits disproportionally more to those at higher risk, while reducing the frequency of screening of lower risk people.

A biosynthetic gene cluster for the bioactive fungal sesterterpenoids variecolin ( 1) and variecolactone ( 2) was identified in Aspergillus aculeatus ATCC 16872. Heterologous production of 1 and 2 was achieved in Aspergillus oryzae by expressing the sesterterpene synthase VrcA and the cytochrome P450 VrcB. Intriguingly, the replacement of VrcB with homologous P450s from other fungal terpenoid pathways yielded three new variecolin analogues ( 5- 7). Analysis of the compounds' anticancer activity in vitro and in vivo revealed that although 5 and 1 had comparable activities, 5 was associated with significantly reduced toxic side effects in cancer-bearing mice, indicating its potentially broader therapeutic window. Our study describes the first tests of variecolin and its analogues in animals and demonstrates the utility of synthetic biology for creating molecules with improved biological activities.

BACKGROUND:This study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory performance of 11 vital sign-based early warning scores(EWSs)and three shock indices in early sepsis prediction in the emergency department(ED). METHODS:We performed a retrospective study on consecutive adult patients with an infection over 3 months in a public ED in Hong Kong.The primary outcome was sepsis(Sepsis-3 definition)within 48 h of ED presentation.Using c-statistics and the DeLong test,we compared 11 EWSs,including the National Early Warning Score 2(NEWS2),Modified Early Warning Score,and Worthing Physiological Scoring System(WPS),etc.,and three shock indices(the shock index[SI],modified shock index[MSI],and diastolic shock index[DSI]),with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome(SIRS)and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment(qSOFA)in predicting the primary outcome,intensive care unit admission,and mortality at different time points. RESULTS:We analyzed 601 patients,of whom 166(27.6%)developed sepsis.NEWS2 had the highest point estimate(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve[AUROC]0.75,95%CI 0.70-0.79)and was significantly better than SIRS,qSOFA,other EWSs and shock indices,except WPS,at predicting the primary outcome.However,the pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEWS2≥5 for the prediction of sepsis were 0.45(95%CI 0.37-0.52)and 0.88(95%CI 0.85-0.91),respectively.The discriminatory performance of all EWSs and shock indices declined when used to predict mortality at a more remote time point. CONCLUSION:NEWS2 compared favorably with other EWSs and shock indices in early sepsis prediction but its low sensitivity at the usual cut-off point requires further modification for sepsis screening.

BACKGROUND:This study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory performance of 11 vital sign-based early warning scores(EWSs)and three shock indices in early sepsis prediction in the emergency department(ED). METHODS:We performed a retrospective study on consecutive adult patients with an infection over 3 months in a public ED in Hong Kong.The primary outcome was sepsis(Sepsis-3 definition)within 48 h of ED presentation.Using c-statistics and the DeLong test,we compared 11 EWSs,including the National Early Warning Score 2(NEWS2),Modified Early Warning Score,and Worthing Physiological Scoring System(WPS),etc.,and three shock indices(the shock index[SI],modified shock index[MSI],and diastolic shock index[DSI]),with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome(SIRS)and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment(qSOFA)in predicting the primary outcome,intensive care unit admission,and mortality at different time points. RESULTS:We analyzed 601 patients,of whom 166(27.6%)developed sepsis.NEWS2 had the highest point estimate(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve[AUROC]0.75,95%CI 0.70-0.79)and was significantly better than SIRS,qSOFA,other EWSs and shock indices,except WPS,at predicting the primary outcome.However,the pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEWS2≥5 for the prediction of sepsis were 0.45(95%CI 0.37-0.52)and 0.88(95%CI 0.85-0.91),respectively.The discriminatory performance of all EWSs and shock indices declined when used to predict mortality at a more remote time point. CONCLUSION:NEWS2 compared favorably with other EWSs and shock indices in early sepsis prediction but its low sensitivity at the usual cut-off point requires further modification for sepsis screening.

BACKGROUND:This study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory performance of 11 vital sign-based early warning scores(EWSs)and three shock indices in early sepsis prediction in the emergency department(ED). METHODS:We performed a retrospective study on consecutive adult patients with an infection over 3 months in a public ED in Hong Kong.The primary outcome was sepsis(Sepsis-3 definition)within 48 h of ED presentation.Using c-statistics and the DeLong test,we compared 11 EWSs,including the National Early Warning Score 2(NEWS2),Modified Early Warning Score,and Worthing Physiological Scoring System(WPS),etc.,and three shock indices(the shock index[SI],modified shock index[MSI],and diastolic shock index[DSI]),with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome(SIRS)and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment(qSOFA)in predicting the primary outcome,intensive care unit admission,and mortality at different time points. RESULTS:We analyzed 601 patients,of whom 166(27.6%)developed sepsis.NEWS2 had the highest point estimate(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve[AUROC]0.75,95%CI 0.70-0.79)and was significantly better than SIRS,qSOFA,other EWSs and shock indices,except WPS,at predicting the primary outcome.However,the pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEWS2≥5 for the prediction of sepsis were 0.45(95%CI 0.37-0.52)and 0.88(95%CI 0.85-0.91),respectively.The discriminatory performance of all EWSs and shock indices declined when used to predict mortality at a more remote time point. CONCLUSION:NEWS2 compared favorably with other EWSs and shock indices in early sepsis prediction but its low sensitivity at the usual cut-off point requires further modification for sepsis screening.

BACKGROUND:This study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory performance of 11 vital sign-based early warning scores(EWSs)and three shock indices in early sepsis prediction in the emergency department(ED). METHODS:We performed a retrospective study on consecutive adult patients with an infection over 3 months in a public ED in Hong Kong.The primary outcome was sepsis(Sepsis-3 definition)within 48 h of ED presentation.Using c-statistics and the DeLong test,we compared 11 EWSs,including the National Early Warning Score 2(NEWS2),Modified Early Warning Score,and Worthing Physiological Scoring System(WPS),etc.,and three shock indices(the shock index[SI],modified shock index[MSI],and diastolic shock index[DSI]),with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome(SIRS)and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment(qSOFA)in predicting the primary outcome,intensive care unit admission,and mortality at different time points. RESULTS:We analyzed 601 patients,of whom 166(27.6%)developed sepsis.NEWS2 had the highest point estimate(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve[AUROC]0.75,95%CI 0.70-0.79)and was significantly better than SIRS,qSOFA,other EWSs and shock indices,except WPS,at predicting the primary outcome.However,the pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEWS2≥5 for the prediction of sepsis were 0.45(95%CI 0.37-0.52)and 0.88(95%CI 0.85-0.91),respectively.The discriminatory performance of all EWSs and shock indices declined when used to predict mortality at a more remote time point. CONCLUSION:NEWS2 compared favorably with other EWSs and shock indices in early sepsis prediction but its low sensitivity at the usual cut-off point requires further modification for sepsis screening.

BACKGROUND:This study aimed to evaluate the discriminatory performance of 11 vital sign-based early warning scores(EWSs)and three shock indices in early sepsis prediction in the emergency department(ED). METHODS:We performed a retrospective study on consecutive adult patients with an infection over 3 months in a public ED in Hong Kong.The primary outcome was sepsis(Sepsis-3 definition)within 48 h of ED presentation.Using c-statistics and the DeLong test,we compared 11 EWSs,including the National Early Warning Score 2(NEWS2),Modified Early Warning Score,and Worthing Physiological Scoring System(WPS),etc.,and three shock indices(the shock index[SI],modified shock index[MSI],and diastolic shock index[DSI]),with Systemic Inflammatory Response Syndrome(SIRS)and quick Sequential Organ Failure Assessment(qSOFA)in predicting the primary outcome,intensive care unit admission,and mortality at different time points. RESULTS:We analyzed 601 patients,of whom 166(27.6%)developed sepsis.NEWS2 had the highest point estimate(area under the receiver operating characteristic curve[AUROC]0.75,95%CI 0.70-0.79)and was significantly better than SIRS,qSOFA,other EWSs and shock indices,except WPS,at predicting the primary outcome.However,the pooled sensitivity and specificity of NEWS2≥5 for the prediction of sepsis were 0.45(95%CI 0.37-0.52)and 0.88(95%CI 0.85-0.91),respectively.The discriminatory performance of all EWSs and shock indices declined when used to predict mortality at a more remote time point. CONCLUSION:NEWS2 compared favorably with other EWSs and shock indices in early sepsis prediction but its low sensitivity at the usual cut-off point requires further modification for sepsis screening.