adreno
PR activist
- Messages
- 4,841
Yeah, and the first person they interview about the results is a psychologistWhat a crappy headline.
Welcome to Phoenix Rising!
Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.
To register, simply click the Register button at the top right.
Yeah, and the first person they interview about the results is a psychologistWhat a crappy headline.
Two of my CFS doctors are in this study! Bravo for them!!!!Distinct plasma immune singatures in ME/CFS present early in the course of the illness
Mady Hornig, José G. Montoya, Nancy G. Klimas, Susan Levine, Donna Felsenstein, Lucinda Bateman, Daniel L. Peterson, C. Gunnar Gottschalk, Andrew F. Schultz, Xiaoyu Che, Meredith L. Eddy, Anthony L. Komaroff, W. Ian Lipkin
my typed abstract, apologies for any errors
ME/CFS is an unexplained incapacitating illness that may affect up to 4 million people in the US alone. There is no validated laboratory test for diagnosis or managment despite global efforts to find biomarkers of the disease. We considered the possibility that inabillity to identify such biomarkers reflected variation in diagnostic criteria and laboratory methods as well as the timing of sample collection during the course of the illness.
Accordingly, we leveraged two large, multicenter cohort studies of ME/CFS to assess the relationship of immune signatures with diagnosis, illness duration and other clinical variables. Controls were frequency matched on key variables known to affect immune status, including season of sampling and geographic site, in addition to age and sex.
We report here distinct alterations in plasma immune signatures early in the course of ME/CFS (n=52) relative to healthy controls (n=340) that are not present in longer duration of the illness (n=246).
Analyses based on duration revealed that early ME/CFS cases had a prominent activation of both pro- and anti-inflammatory cytokines as well as disociation of intercytokine regulatory networks. We found a stronger correlation of cytokine alterations with illness duration than with measures of illness severity, suggesting the immunopathology of ME/CFS is not static. These findings have critical implications for discovery of interventiona strategies and early diagnosis in ME/CFS.
This says more than words.![]()
S
Prof. Derek Hill: IXICO has no commercial interest in ME or ME biomarkers
Prof. Peter White: Does voluntary work for UK departments of Health and Work and Pensions and Ministry of Defence. Also does paid work for a re-insurance company.
No other interests declared
What a surprising and delightful selection of "experts"Science Media Centre's "Expert reaction to biomarkers for CFS/ME":
Not at all. Take a look at the graphic pasted by @A.B.What about patiënts how are longer sick then 3 years? For these patiënt there still will be nothing yet. Thet are still 'grazy''... because there is no test.... This study will also be like XMRV hype, sorry.... replications on cytokines are not working in CFS.
Patients who had been ill for less than three years had “a prominent activation” of cytokines that influence inflammation in the body, compared with other study subjects, the scientists found. Those sicker for longer than three years exhibited dampened cytokine activity, which the researchers interpreted as a possible sign of “a premature immune-system aging.”
Absolutely WRETCHED and DEFENSIVE comments from the psych crowd. The reactions of Pr. Michael Sharpe are particularly inane and idiotic. There, I said it!Science Media Centre's "Expert reaction to biomarkers for CFS/ME":
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-biomarkers-for-cfsme/
A paper published in the journal Science Advances has reported the presence of a specific biomarker signature in patients early in the course of CFS/ME, which was not seen in patients with a longer duration of the illness or in healthy individuals. The biomarkers relate to immune signalling messengers.
Prof. Michael Sharpe, Professor of Psychological Medicine, University of Oxford, said:
“Whilst this finding that some patients with CFS/ME have an immune abnormality is potentially interesting, we should treat it with great caution.
“This type of study (a case-control study) is notorious for producing findings that other researchers subsequently fail to replicate.
“Everyone who has worked clinically with patients with CFS/ME knows this is a real illness; this study neither proves nor disproves that observation.”
Prof. Stephen Lawrie, Head of the Division of Psychiatry, University of Edinburgh, said:
“This field – the biology and especially immunology of ME/CFS – has been bedeviled by false dawns for at least 20 years. This is a small study and the fact that the ‘biomarker’ does not internally replicate is a concern. Yes, it could be that there is a different immune profile in acute and chronic ME/CFS but it is at least as likely that the finding in acute patients is down to chance and hence a false positive signal.”
Prof. Peter White, Professor of Psychological Medicine, Queen Mary University of London (QMUL), said:
“This study is impressive when considering the numbers studied and the care taken by the renowned scientists undertaking it. But I think it is premature to conclude that they have found ‘a diagnostic biomarker for disease’, something that would make diagnosis much easier. Only one out of the 51 immune proteins studied was elevated in all cases compared with controls, something that could happen by chance alone. Finding more elevated immune proteins in those with a short duration of illness is less convincing when this was found to be more important than the association with the severity of illness: one of the fundamental tests of a biomarker. I hope the authors will go on to re-examine their data after stratifying their samples by other factors that determine the different sub-groups that most scientists now accept make up this illness. Finally, as the authors themselves suggest, we need to see these results replicated independently. ”
“This type of study (a case-control study) is notorious for producing findings that other researchers subsequently fail to replicate.
No one claimed to have discovered a diagnostic biomarker.“These authors did no assessment of these values and thus, the idea from a statement in the press release that that ‘there is unequivocal evidence for a diagnostic biomarker’ is unsubstantiated.
I think the headline is deliberate. What they are doing is planting a flag, as in: yes this is biological proof (even though it's been known before), but we won't be denied anymore, and there's no way back from here. This group includes TOP researchers in immunology. "Yuppy flu" no more!Well, it makes a good headline, even if not accurate! (Esp coming from Lipkin's lab and Stanford.)
Anyone got a
I vaguely remember @Simon mentioning that displaying results in this way can make them seem more significant than they are? (I need to take the time to understand this stuff better).
.
Well, obviously, having seen the data! What I meant was that this huge cytokine study didn't replicate the findings of cytokine differences between patients and controls seen in many smaller studies, and that was a surprise, to me anyway, and I suspect to the authors too.Not really a surprise, as the short duration (high cytokines) and long duration (low cytokines) cancel each other out when combined.So this is a surprise: not much difference between cases and controls. There was a pattern of slightlly higher levels in patients than controls, but not much to shout about.
So between-group differences were small, whereas within-group differences were significant.
They have taken this statement out of contex: ''This study delivers what has eluded us for so long: unequivocal evidence of immunological dysfunction in ME/CFS and diagnostic biomarkers for disease,” says senior author W. Ian Lipkin, MD, also the John Snow Professor of EpidemiologyNo one claimed to have discovered a diagnostic biomarker.
About Us
The Science Media Centre has its roots in the influential House of Lords Science and Technology Select Committee third report on Science and Society, which wanted to renew public trust in science. Established in 2002, it was originally based in the Royal Institution of Great Britain, until becoming a separate charity in its own right in April 2011. The Centre is now housed in the Wellcome Trust, and believes that scientists can have a huge impact on the way the media cover scientific issues, by engaging more quickly and more effectively with the stories that are influencing public debate and attitudes to science.
The SMC’s philosophy is:
“The media will DO science better when scientists DO the media better.”
HA! I love it. The Columbia team led by Lipkin and Hornig planted a huge flag in Simon Wessely's castle.@Gingergrrl, here's what the SMC say about themselves. Someone else will no doubt be able to enlighten you about the connections behind the scenes.
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/
What about patiënts how are longer sick then 3 years? For these patiënt there still will be nothing yet.