Accurate identification of new antifreeze proteins is important in understanding ice-protein interactions and creating novel ice-binding domains in other proteins. Though some researchers have focused on this problem, the accuracy of prediction is still not satisfied, and there are few online web servers for predicting antifreeze protein sequences. In this paper, a highly accurate method is developed for predicting antifreeze proteins using support vector machine and evolutional profiles. This is the first paper in which evolutionary information in the form of PSSM profiles has been utilized to predict antifreeze proteins. The proposed predictor is freely available at the web serve AFP_PSSM [28] . Reliability and External Validity of AMSTAR in Assessing Quality of TCM Systematic Reviews Objective. The aim of this study is to measure the reliability and external validity of AMSTAR by applying it to a sample of TCM systematic reviews. Study Design and Methods. We tested the agreement, reliability, construct validity, and feasibility of AMSTAR through comparisons with OQAQ. Statistical analyses were performed by using SPSS 13.0. Results. A random of sample with 41 TCM systematic reviews was selected from a database. The interrater agreement of the individual items of AMSTAR was moderate with a mean kappa of 0.50 (95% CI: 0.26, 0.73). The ICC for AMSTAR against OQAQ (total score of 9 items, excluding item 10) was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.76, 0.93). Conclusions. Although there is room for improvement on few items, the new tool is reliable, valid, and easy to use for methodological quality assessment of systematic reviews on TCM. Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM) is one of the rarely existing traditional medicines that hold systematic theories as well as preventative and therapeutic methods for diseases in practice [1] . Since the 1950s, research methods in modern medicine (Western medicine) have been gradually introduced to TCM studies; the first TCM systematic review appeared in medical journals in the late 1990s, and now hundreds to thousands of reviews have been published on the area of TCM [2, 3] ; systematic reviews have become the standard approach in assessing and summarizing primary studies. However, even though systematic reviews proved to be useful, serious consideration must be given to how they were conducted; high methodological quality of systematic reviews is a prerequisite for recommendation of the use or avoidance of a TCM intervention. At present, either researches or methods for assessing quality of systematic reviews are still not fully developed in TCM and there is substantial room for improvement [2, 3] ; even in Western medicine current instruments for assessing methodological quality of systematic reviews are still suboptimal and need revision and updating [4, 5] . A new tool termed AMSTAR, an acronym for "a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews," was developed strictly upon the OQAQ (Overview Quality Assessment Questionnaire) [6] , the Sack checklist (quality assessment checklist) [7] , and three additional items. This tool is an 11-item questionnaire requiring assessors to answer "yes," "no," "cannot answer," or "not applicable"; and a recent study reported that AMSTAR has good agreement, reliability, construct validity, and feasibility to assess the quality of systematic reviews [8] . However, these psychometric properties within AMSTAR were tested by having it apply to only a limited set of systematic reviews from Western medicine; a further step is needed to assess its validity and reliability, by a broader range of assessors and more samples of reviews in diverse circumstances [8] . Will the results be reproducible when assessing methodological quality of systematic reviews on traditional chinese medicine (TCM)? The answer is not clear yet, further validation is necessary. The aim of this study is to validate the reliability and external validity of AMSTAR by applying it to a sample of TCM systematic reviews.