基于中医古籍文献的升降散应用溯源及探析

通过对中医古籍中有关升降散论述的文献梳理,全面探讨其内涵。本方是在大黄、僵蚕为雏形的基础上增加蝉蜕、姜黄而成方,几经易名,终在杨璿《伤寒瘟疫条辨》中为后人所熟知。本方广泛用于治疗瘟疫,以丸剂、散剂为主,方便携带,便于服用;重用大黄旨在祛邪、逐秽;应用时视人之体质强弱和量其毒之轻重而判断用药多寡,并辅以米酒、生蜜等以顾护正气。杨璿将其由治疗“热疫”的专方扩展为治疗“表里三焦大热”的通用方剂,扩大了本方治疗疾病范围。     

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。     

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

     

Outcomes after neoadjuvant or adjuvant chemotherapy for cT2-4N0-1 non–small cell lung cancer: A propensity-matched analysis

Objective

Comparative survival between neoadjuvant chemotherapy and adjuvant chemotherapy for patients with cT2-4N0-1M0 non–small cell lung cancer has not been extensively studied.

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.