MSCT在对比剂外渗的急性腹部创伤性动脉损伤诊断中的应用价值

目的探讨MSCT在对比剂外渗的急性腹部创伤性动脉损伤诊断中的应用价值。方法回顾性分析本院2016年1月～2018年12月收治的44例急性创伤性腹部动脉损伤患者及58例腹部非创伤性动脉病变患者影像资料,分析急性腹部创伤性和非创伤性动脉病变所致对比剂外渗的相关性。结果 44例创伤性腹部损伤患者通过MSCT及图像后处理技术共检出59支动脉损伤,其中对比剂外渗34支、非对比剂外渗共25支;58例急性腹部非创伤组共检出58支动脉病变,其中8支存在对比剂外渗。对比剂外渗征象创伤组出现率明显高于非创伤性组(χ~2=24.42,P0.05)。结论与非创伤组相比,急性腹部创伤性动脉损伤对比剂外渗征象较为常见,MSCT可以较好地显示创伤性对比剂外渗的直接及间接征象。     

Recall of emotional and neutral words and paragraphs in traumatic brain injury

Background: Traumatic brain injury (TBI) results in verbal recall deficits and impaired processing of emotion encoded in facial appearance, prosody and the linguistic content of messages. Emotion facilitates memory (emotional memory advantage) for non-brain injured (NBI) individuals but the impact of emotion on verbal recall for linguistically encoded stimuli in TBI has not been explored.

Aims: The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of stimulus emotional content on verbal recall of words and paragraphs in TBI compared to NBI individuals.

Methods and procedures: Six 10-item lists, each with five emotional and five neutral words, and six paragraphs (three emotional, three neutral) were counterbalanced and presented in random order to 20 individuals with TBI and 44 NBI. The number of words from lists and the number of content units from paragraphs were compared for the two groups.

Outcomes and results: The NBI participants recalled more words from the lists and content units from the paragraphs than the individuals with TBI. Both groups recalled significantly more emotional than neutral words. NBI but not TBI participants had significantly greater recall for information in paragraphs with emotional content.

Conclusions: Participants with TBI showed impaired recall of words and paragraph content. Emotion facilitated word and paragraph content recall for neurotypical individuals but emotional memory advantage was limited to words for the TBI participants.     

Constructing robust selves after brain injury: positive identity work among members of a female self-help group

Despite common experiences of identity damage, decline, and deterioration, many brain injury survivors succeed in reconstructing robust identities in the wake of injury. Yet, while this accomplishment greatly benefits survivors’ quality of life, little is known about how positive identity work might be facilitated or enhanced in therapeutic institutions. Drawing on data from a women’s self-help group, we argue that an egalitarian, reflective, strength-focused, and gender-segregated environment can provide female ABI (acquired brain injury) survivors with a fertile scene for identity enhancement and offer unique opportunities for collective identity development. Sociolinguistic interactional analysis revealed four types of positive identity work undertaken within the group: constructing competent selves; tempering the threat of loss and impairment; resisting infantilisation and delegitimisation; and asserting a collective gender identity. This identity work was facilitated by specific programme attributes and activities and contributed to the global project of decentring disability and destigmatising impairments and losses. We call for increased attention to identity issues in brain injury rehabilitation and argue that gender-segregated programming can provide a unique space for female survivors to construct empowering individual and collective identities after injury.     

儿童期创伤应对方式自动思维与大学生抑郁特质间的关系

目的探讨儿童期创伤与抑郁特质之间的中介和调节机制,为开展相关研究和干预提供参考。方法2017-2018年采用整群抽样的方法,抽取湖南某高校大一年级2 786名学生完成儿童期创伤问卷、状态特质抑郁问卷、自动思维问卷和特质应对方式问卷的调查。结果儿童期创伤、自动思维和消极应对对抑郁特质起正向的预测作用,积极应对对抑郁特质起负向的预测作用(β值分别为0.12,0.43,0.14,-0.33,P值均<0.05)。自动思维中介儿童期创伤与抑郁特质之间的关系(Bootstrapping法的95%CI为0.03~0.06)。消极应对分别调节了儿童期创伤与自动思维和儿童期创伤与抑郁特质之间的关系(P值均<0.05)。结论儿童期创伤影响抑郁特质,其关系受到应对方式和自动思维的影响。     

The case for allele‐specific recognition by the TCR

There is a sharp difference in how one views TCR structure–function–behaviour dependent on whether its recognition of major histocompatibility complex‐encoded restriction elements (R) is germline selected or somatically generated. The generally accepted or Standard model is built on the assumption that recognition of R is by the V regions of the αβ TCR, which is not driven by allele specificity, whereas the competing model posits that recognition of R is allele‐specific. The establishing of allele‐specific recognition of R by the TCR would rule out the Standard model and clear the road to a consideration of a competing construct, the Tritope model. Here, the case for allele‐specific recognition (germline selected) is detailed making it obvious that the Standard model is untenable.