Standards of care pertain to crafting and implementing patient-centered treatment interventions. Standards of care must take into consideration the patient's gender, ethnicity, medical and dental history, insurance coverage (or socioeconomic level, if a private patient), and the timeliness of the targeted scientific evidence. This resolves into a process by which clinical decision-making about the optimal patient-centered treatment relies on the best available research evidence, and all other necessary inputs and factors to provide the best possible treatment. Standards of care must be evidence-based, and not merely based on the evidence - the dichotomy being critical in contemporary health services research and practice. Evidence-based standards of care must rest on the best available evidence that emerges from a concerted hypothesis-driven process of research synthesis and meta-analysis. Health information technology needs to become an every-day reality in health services research and practice to ensure evidence-based standards of care. Current trends indicate that user-friendly methodologies, for the dissemination of evidence-based standards of care, must be developed, tested and distributed. They should include approaches for the quantification and analysis of the textual content of systematic reviews and of their summaries in the form of critical reviews and lay-language summaries.

Traditional research in the health sciences has involved control and experimental groups of patients, and descriptive and inferential statistical analyses performed on the measurements obtained from the samples in each group. As the novel model of translational healthcare, which integrates translational research and translational effectiveness, becomes increasingly established in modern contemporary medicine, healthcare continues to evolve into a model of care that is evidence-based, effectiveness-focused and patient-centered. Patient-centered care and patient-targeted therapies require the timely and critical development and validation of a new research paradigm, individual patient research (IPR), as opposed to the customary group research approach. Here, we propose a model of individual patient research to define and characterize the effectiveness of a novel therapeutic intervention for temporomandibular joint disorder. The intervention must be tailor-made for each individual patient, and the data from each patient must be analyzed individually. We propose that this endeavor is best achieved by means of an adaptive cluster randomized stepped wedge blinded controlled trial, because it permit individual patient outcomes research and analysis, ensures equipoise, and maintains adequate power. The patient targeted therapies section of the Journal of Translational Medicine must endeavor to facilitate the dissemination of studies that focus broadly on translational research for the ultimate benefit of individual patients.

Cognitive impairment represents the most significant and devastating neurological complication associated with HIV infection. Despite recent advances in our knowledge of the clinical features, pathogenesis, and molecular aspects of HIV-related dementia, current diagnostic strategies are associated with significant limitations. It has been suggested that the use of some biomarkers may assist researchers and clinicians in predicting the onset of the disease process and in evaluating the effects of new therapies. However, the large number of chemicals and metabolic pathways involved in the pathogenesis of neurodegeneration, warrants the development of novel approaches to integrate this huge amount of data. The contribution of theoretical disciplines, such as bioinformatics and data-mining, may be useful for testing new hypotheses in diagnosis and patient-centered treatment interventions.

Mesenchymal stem cells (MSCs) provide an appropriate model to study epigenetic changes during osteogenesis and bone regeneration due to their differentiation potential. Since there are no unique markers for MSCs, methods of identification are limited. The complex morphology of human embryonic palatal mesenchyme stem cell (HEPM) requires analysis of fractal dimensions to provide an objective quantification of self-similarity, a statistical transformation of cellular shape and border complexity. We propose the hypothesis of a study to compare and contrast sequential steps of osteogenic differentiation in HEPMs both phenotypically using immunocytochemistry, and morphometrically using fractal analysis from undifferentiated passage 1 (P1) to passage 7 (P7) cells. The proof-of-concept is provided by results we present here that identify and compare the modulation of expression of certain epigenetic biomarkers (alkaline phosphatase, ALP; stromal interaction molecule-1, STRO-1; runt-related transcription factor-2, RUNX2), which are established markers of osteogenesis in bone marrow studies, of osteoblastic/skeletal morphogenesis, and of osteoblast maturation. We show that Osteoinductive medium (OIM) modulates the rate of differentiation of HEPM into Run-2+ cells, the most differentiated subpopulation, followed by ALP+ and STRO-1+ cells. Taken together, our phenotypical and morphometric data demonstrate the feasibility of using HEPM to assess osteogenic differentiation from an early undifferentiated to a differentiated stage. This research model may lay the foundation for future studies aimed at characterizing the epigenetic characteristics of osteoimmunological disorders and dysfunctions (e.g., osteoarthritis, temporomandibular joint disorders), so that proteomic profiling can aid the diagnosis and monitor the prognosis of these and other osteoimmunopathologies.

In the U.S., nasopharyngeal carcinoma (NpC) kills >7,600 each year. Deaths are predominantly among adult men, and in most cases, early detection and treatment can save lives. Despite the annual spending of approximately 3.2 billion dollars on head and neck cancer research, NpC remains a neglected disease since its fatality rates are among the lowest nation wide. The relative survival rates from NpC have not improved in the U.S. in the last 20 years. Infection with Epstein Barr Virus (EBV) is an important co-factor in the etiology of NpC. In other regions of the word (e.g., South-East Asia, Latin America), EBV infection and NpCrelated prevalence and mortality are substantially higher and more alarming. Epidemiological data indicate high prevalence of EBV infection and increased risk for NpC among Central and South American and Asian immigrants in the U.S., and also predict a sharp increase in NpC incidence in the next decade. To face this emerging threat, it is important to develop and validate novel modes of detection and intervention for NpC. To this end, we characterized the proteomic signature of NpC, and of the tumor infiltrating lymphocytes of the CD8+, activated (CD38+, mTOR+) and regulatory immune cell (FoxP3+) phenotype. Paraffinized biopsies were processed, and tissue microarrays constructed and tested by immunohistochemistry and triimmunohistofluorescence for a battery of signaling markers, including AKT and PI3K, in conjunction with EBV status and ANKRD11, an NpC susceptibility biomarker. Microphotographs, analyzed and quantified by confocal microscopy and fractal analysis, suggest new avenues for immunotherapies of NpC.

The combined/synergistic effect of genetic mutation of KRAS in the pancreas and obesity, a life-style factor on suppression of natural killer (NK) cells at the pre-neoplastic stage of pancreatic cancer has not been investigated and is the subject of this report. Obese mice with KRAS (KC) mutation in the pancreas fed with high-fat calorie diet (HFCD) exhibit severe deficiencies in the NK cell expansion and function at the pre-neoplastic stage of pancreatic cancer. Decreased NK cell-mediated cytotoxicity is observed in the peripheral blood, spleen, pancreas, and peri-pancreatic adipose tissue in obese KC mice, whereas in bone marrow an increased NK cell-mediated cytotoxicity is observed when compared to lean WT mice fed with control diet (CD). Obese KC mice on HFCD demonstrated the least ability to expand NK cells or induce NK cell-mediated cytotoxicity when compared to the other groups of mice. Indeed, the following profile WT/CD > WT/HFCD > KC/CD > KC/HFCD was seen for the ability to expand NK cells or mediate cytotoxicity among four groups of mice in spleen, peripheral blood, pancreas, and peri-pancreatic adipose tissue. Sorted NK cells from the splenocytes of four groups of mice also exhibited the same profiles for the cytotoxicity as the unsorted splenocytes, and a decreased IFN-γ secretion could be seen in cultures of NK cells from KC mice fed with either CD or HFCD. Cultures of NK cells with autologous monocytes from obese KC mice fed with HFCD exhibited decreased cytotoxicity and IFN-γ secretion, whereas cultures of allogeneic NK cells from WT mice fed with CD with osteoclasts of obese mice fed with HFCD demonstrated decreased cytotoxicity but augmented IFN-γ secretion. Increased IL-6 along with decreased IFN-γ and cell-mediated cytotoxicity by the NK cells, within NK-adipose tissue of KC/HFCD mice, may provide safe microenvironment for the expansion of pancreatic tumors.

Abstract Risk of bias in translational medicine may take one of three forms: A. a systematic error of methodology as it pertains to measurement or sampling (e.g., selection bias), B. a systematic defect of design that leads to estimates of experimental and control groups, and of effect sizes that substantially deviate from true values (e.g., information bias), and C. a systematic distortion of the analytical process, which results in a misrepresentation of the data with consequential errors of inference (e.g., inferential bias). Risk of bias can seriously adulterate the internal and the external validity of a clinical study, and, unless it is identified and systematically evaluated, can seriously hamper the process of comparative effectiveness and efficacy research and analysis for practice. The Cochrane Group and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality have independently developed instruments for assessing the meta-construct of risk of bias. The present article begins to discuss this dialectic.

As a direct benefit of the Health Care Reform Act (2010), concerted effort has been deployed to define and characterize the process by which the best available evidence for diagnosis or treatment intervention prognosis can be obtained. The science of research synthesis in health care has established the systematic research protocol by which randomized clinical trials and other clinical studies must be reviewed and compared for the level and quality of the evidence presented, as well as the consensus of the best available evidence synthesized and shared. This process of systematic review yields a reliable and valid approach in comparing different interventions and strategies to prevent, diagnose, treat and monitor health conditions in terms of efficacy, and or of effectiveness. The resulting bioinformation outcome of comparative effectiveness and efficacy research review of the available clinical data is expressed as a consensus of the best available evidence, which finds its way in evidence-based clinical practice guidelines, standards of care and eventually, in policies: hence, the acronym CEERAP (comparative effectiveness and efficacy review and policy). The methodological and the procedural criteria that determine and regulate the public reporting dissemination of this sort of bioinformation, and the extent of benefit to the patient's health literacy, which have remained a bit more elusive to this date, are investigated and discussed in this paper.

Influenza A virus is a serious public health threat. Most recently the 2009/H1N1 pandemic virus had an inherent ability to evade the host's immune surveillance through genetic drift, shift, and genomic reassortment. Immune characterization of 2009/H1N1 utilized monoclonal antibodies, neutralizing sera, and proteomics. Increased age may have provided some degree of immunity, but vaccines against seasonal influenza viruses seldom yield cross-reactive immunity, exemplified by 2009/H1N1. Nonetheless, about 33% of individuals, over the age of 60, had cross-reactive neutralizing antibodies against 2009/H1N1, whereas only 6-9% young adults had these antibodies. Children characteristically had no detectable immunity against 2009/H1N1. Taken together, these observations suggest some degree of immune transference with at least certain strains of virus that have afflicted the human population in past decades. Because internal influenza proteins may exhibit less antigenic variation, it is possible that prior exposure to diverse strains of influenza virus provide some immunity to novel strains, including the recent pandemic strain (swine-avian A/H1N1). Current trends in immunological studies - specifically the modulation of cellular immune surveillance provided by TH17 and Tregs - also support the need for additional proteomic research for characterizing novel translational evidence-based treatment interventions based on cytokine function to help defeat the virus. Timely and critical research must characterize the impact of genetics and epigenetics of oral and systemic host immune surveillance responses to influenza A virus. The continued development and application of proteomics and gene expression across viral strains and human tissues increases our ability to combat the spread of influenza epidemics and pandemics.

Risk of bias in translational medicine may take one of three forms: A. a systematic error of methodology as it pertains to measurement or sampling (e.g., selection bias), B. a systematic defect of design that leads to estimates of experimental and control groups, and of effect sizes that substantially deviate from true values (e.g., information bias), and C. a systematic distortion of the analytical process, which results in a misrepresentation of the data with consequential errors of inference (e.g., inferential bias). Risk of bias can seriously adulterate the internal and the external validity of a clinical study, and, unless it is identified and systematically evaluated, can seriously hamper the process of comparative effectiveness and efficacy research and analysis for practice. The Cochrane Group and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality have independently developed instruments for assessing the meta-construct of risk of bias. The present article begins to discuss this dialectic.