Extensive testing lies at the heart of any strategy to effectively combat the SARS-COV-2 pandemic. In recent months, the use of enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay-based antibody tests has gained a lot of attention. These tests can potentially be used to assess SARS-COV-2 immunity status in individuals (e.g., essential health care personnel). They can also be used as a screening tool to identify people that had COVID-19 asymptomatically, thus getting a better estimate of the true spread of the disease, gain important insights on disease severity, and to better evaluate the effectiveness of policy measures implemented to combat the pandemic. But the usefulness of these tests depends not only on the quality of the test but also, critically, on how far disease has already spread in the population. For example, when only very few people in a population are infected, a positive test result has a high chance of being a false positive. As a consequence, the spread of the disease in a population as well as individuals' immunity status may be systematically misinterpreted. SARS-COV-2 infection rates vary greatly across both time and space. In many places, the infection rates are very low but can quickly skyrocket when the virus spreads unchecked. Here, we present two tools, natural frequency trees and positive and negative predictive value graphs, that allow one to assess the usefulness of antibody testing for a specific context at a glance. These tools should be used to support individual doctor-patient consultation for assessing individual immunity status as well as to inform policy discussions on testing initiatives.There is mounting evidence that only a small fraction of early-onset Alzheimer disease cases (onset less then 65 years) are explained by known mutations. Even multiplex families with early onset often also have late-onset cases, suggesting that the commonly applied categorization of Alzheimer disease into early- and late-onset forms may not reflect distinct underlying etiology. Nevertheless, this categorization continues to govern today's research and the design of clinical trials. The aim of this review is to evaluate this categorization by providing a comprehensive, critical review of reported clinical, neuropathologic, and genomic characteristics of both onset-based subtypes and explore potential overlap between both categories. The article will lay out the need to comprehensively assess the phenotypic, neuropathologic, and molecular variability in Alzheimer disease and identify factors explaining the observed significant variation in onset age in persons with and without known mutations. The article will critically review ongoing large-scale genomic efforts in Alzheimer disease research (e.g., Alzheimer Disease Sequencing Project, Dominantly Inherited Alzheimer Network, Alzheimer Disease Neuroimaging Initiative) and their shortcomings to disentangle the delineation of unexplained nonmendelian early-onset from late-onset and mendelian forms of Alzheimer disease. In addition, it will outline specific approaches including epigenetic research through which a comprehensive characterization of this delineation can be achieved. To use survival modeling to estimate disease duration in autosomal dominant familial Alzheimer disease (ADAD) and ascertain whether factors influencing age at onset also affect survival. Symptomatic mutation carriers (201 presenilin 1 [ ] and 55 amyloid precursor protein [ ]) from ADAD families referred to the Dementia Research Centre, between 1987 and 2019, were included. Survival was assessed with respect to age at onset, year of birth, ε4 status, cognitive presentation, and sex using multilevel mixed-effects Weibull survival models. The contribution of mutation and family to variance in age at onset and duration was also assessed. Estimated mean survival was 11.6 (10.4-12.9) years and was similar for and mutations. selleck chemical Sixty-seven percent of the variance in age at onset was explained by mutation and 72% by mutation and family together. In contrast, only 6% of the variance in disease duration was explained by mutation specificity and 18% by family membership. Irrespective of gene, survival appeared longer for successive generations and in individuals with atypical presentations. Older age at onset was associated with longer duration within and shorter duration within mutation carriers. No differences in survival time were found between sexes or between mutations located before or beyond codon 200 within . Survival is influenced by mutation to a much lesser extent than age at onset. Survival time has increased over time and is longer in atypical presentations. These insights may inform the interpretation of disease-modifying therapy trials in ADAD.Survival is influenced by mutation to a much lesser extent than age at onset. Survival time has increased over time and is longer in atypical presentations. These insights may inform the interpretation of disease-modifying therapy trials in ADAD.The following fictional case is intended as a learning tool within the Pathology Competencies for Medical Education (PCME), a set of national standards for teaching pathology. These are divided into three basic competencies Disease Mechanisms and Processes, Organ System Pathology, and Diagnostic Medicine and Therapeutic Pathology. For additional information, and a full list of learning objectives for all three competencies, see http//journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2374289517715040.1.We describe the methods and decision from a health technology assessment of a new molecular test for bladder cancer (Cxbladder), which was proposed for adoption to our send-out test menu by urology providers. The Cxbladder health technology assessment report contained mixed evidence; predominant concerns were related to the test's low specificity and high cost. The low specificity indicated a high false-positive rate, which our laboratory formulary committee concluded would result in unnecessary confirmatory testing and follow-up. Our committee voted unanimously to not adopt the test system-wide for use for the initial diagnosis of bladder cancer but supported a pilot study for bladder cancer recurrence surveillance. The pilot study used real-world data from patient management in the scenario in which a patient is evaluated for possible recurrent bladder cancer after a finding of atypical cytopathology in the urine. We evaluated the type and number of follow-up tests conducted including urine cytopathology, imaging studies, repeat cystoscopy evaluation, biopsy, and repeat Cxbladder and their test results.