基于雨课堂的临床流行病学教学改革与实践

目的探讨雨课堂在临床流行病学教学中的作用和效果。方法采用随机对照法在本科阶段无流行病学学习经历的临床专业硕士研究生中,使用雨课堂线上课前预习及课后随堂练习的功能,用于评价雨课堂线上功能的辅助教学效果。结果应用雨课堂线上功能干预组与对照组在基线、阶段小测和末考卷面成绩均无统计学差异;但对于主动学习,雨课堂参与度较高的学生成绩提高明显。结论雨课堂有利于理论性较强课程的学习,但是仍不能忽略课堂教学师生互动过程。     

Rare patients in routine care: Treatment and outcome in advanced papillary renal cell carcinoma in the prospective German clinical RCC-Registry

Non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma is a very rare malignancy that includes several histological subtypes. Each subtype may need to be addressed separately regarding prognosis and treatment; however, no Phase III clinical trial data exist. Thus, treatment recommendations for patients with non-clear cell metastatic RCC (mRCC) remain unclear. We present first prospective data on choice of first- and second-line treatment in routine practice and outcome of patients with papillary mRCC. From the prospective German clinical cohort study (RCC-Registry), 99 patients with papillary mRCC treated with systemic first-line therapy between December 2007 and May 2017 were included. Prospectively enrolled patients who had started first-line treatment until May 15, 2016, were included into the outcome analyses (n = 82). Treatment was similar to therapies used for clear cell mRCC and consisted of tyrosine kinase inhibitors, mechanistic target of rapamycin inhibitors and recently checkpoint inhibitors. Median progression-free survival from start of first-line treatment was 5.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 4.1–9.2) and median overall survival was 12.0 months (95% CI, 8.1–20.0). At data cutoff, 73% of the patients died, 6% were still observed, 12% were lost to follow-up, and 9% were alive at the end of the individual 3-year observation period. Despite the lack of prospective Phase III evidence in patients with papillary mRCC, our real-world data reveal effectiveness of systemic clear cell mRCC therapy in papillary mRCC. The prognosis seems to be inferior for papillary compared to clear cell mRCC. Further studies are needed to identify drivers of effectiveness of systemic therapy for papillary mRCC.     

益气养精法对老年肺癌患者肿瘤标志物、生存期影响研究

目的探究益气养精法对老年肺癌患者肿瘤标志物、生存期影响。方法研究纳入60例老年肺癌患者,均由本院2016年1月-2017年1月收治,采取随机数字表法将患者分为两组,对照组患者(30例)常规化疗治疗,观察组患者(30例)在化疗基础上联合益气养精法治疗,比较两组患者治疗效果、治疗前后癌胚抗原(carcino-embryonic antigen,CEA)及血清癌抗原125(serum oncoantigen 125,CA 125)肿瘤标志物水平、不良反应情况及患者2年生存率。结果观察组患治疗有效率高于对照组,P<0.05;治疗前,两组患者CEA及CA 125水平相当,P>0.05,治疗后均改善,观察组优于对照组,P<0.05;观察组患者不良反应与对照组相当,均较低,P>0.05;观察组患者2年生存率高于对照组,P<0.05。结论益气养精法治疗老年肺癌患者效果患者,患者症状改善,不良反应少,安全可靠,且患者2年生存率较高。     

The proteome microenvironment determines the protective effect of preconditioning in cisplatin-induced acute kidney injury

1. Download high-res image (341KB)
2. Download full-size image

     

清肝解郁和健脾补肾法在治疗肝火上亢型慢性肾衰合并高血压中的应用

目的:观察清肝解郁和健脾补肾法治疗肝火上亢型慢性肾衰(CRF)合并高血压患者的临床效果。方法:选取2016年6月至2018年6月京东誉美医院收治的肝火上亢型CRF合并高血压患者90例作为研究对象,按照随机数字表法随机分为对照组和观察组,每组45例。对照组给予口服硝苯地平控释片治疗,观察组在对照组治疗基础上给予清肝解郁、健脾补肾汤治疗,每4周为1个疗程,均治疗3个疗程。比较治疗前后中医症状评分、收缩压(SBP)、舒张压(DBP)变化;比较2组临床疗效;比较治疗前后肾功能指标:尿素氮(BUN)、血肌酐(Scr)、24 h尿蛋白定量(24 hPRO);统计治疗期间2组不良反应发生情况。结果:治疗前观察组与对照组中医症状评分、SBP、DBP、BUN、Scr、24 hPRO比较,差异均无统计学意义(P>0.05),治疗后2组患者中医症状评分、SBP、DBP、BUN、Scr、24 hPRO均显著降低(P<0.05),观察组均低于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);2组临床疗效比较,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05),且观察组总有效率显著高于对照组,差异有统计学意义(P<0.05);观察组和对照组不良反应发生率分别为2.22%和6.67%,2组比较差异无统计学意义(P>0.05)。结论:清肝解郁、健脾补肾法辅助治疗肝火上亢型CRF合并高血压疗效确切,可较好控制血压,并且可显著改善肾功能,减少不良反应发生情况。     

探讨中西医护理改善老年高血压患者生活质量的效果

目的探讨中西医结合护理改善老年高血压患者心理状态及生活质量的效果。方法在医院2018年1月—2018年6月就诊的老年高血压患者中选出60例,按照随机数字法的原则,分成研究组(n=30)和参考组(n=30)。参考组采用单一西医护理,研究组在此之外联合中医护理,比较两组患者的临床疗效。结果入院时研究组与参考组SAS、SDS、SF-6评分差异不显著(P>0.05),护理后1月、3月与参考组相比,研究组SAS、SDS评分显著降低(P<0.05),SF-6评分显著升高(P<0.05);研究组患者对中西结合护理满意度为96.67%,参考组患者对西医护理满意度为73.33%,研究组满意度较参考组高,差异显著(P<0.05)。结论中西医结合护理能够有效改善老年高血压患者的心理状态,提高生活质量。     

Marr and Reductionism

David Marr's three-level method for completely understanding a cognitive system and the importance he attaches to the computational level are so familiar as to scarcely need repeating. Fewer seem to recognize that Marr defends his famous method by criticizing the “reductionistic approach.” This sets up a more interesting relationship between Marr and reductionism than is usually acknowledged. I argue that Marr was correct in his criticism of the reductionists of his time—they were only describing (cellular activity), not explaining (cognitive functions). But a careful metascientific account of reductionistic neuroscience over the past two decades reveals that Marr's criticisms no longer have force. Contemporary neuroscience now explains cognition directly, although in a fashion—causal-mechanistically—quite different than Marr recommended. So while Marr was correct to reject the reductionism of his day and offer an alternative method for genuinely explaining cognition, contemporary cognitive scientists now owe us a new defense of Marr's famous method and the advantages of its explanations over the type now pursued successfully in current reductionist neuroscience. There are familiar reasons for thinking that this debt will not be paid easily.