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。     

干扰素在恶性淋巴瘤自体移植后早期干预的应用

目的:观察非霍奇金淋巴瘤（non-Hodgkin's lymphoma，NHL）患者自体造血干细胞移植（autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation，ASCT）术后应用重组人α-2b干扰素（α-2b IFN）进行早期干预治疗的临床疗效。方法:选取18例行ASCT的NHL患者为研究对象，移植前疾病评估均未达到完全缓解（complete remission，CR），试验组血象恢复后给予IFN 3 000 000 U次/隔日干预治疗，3个月后停用；对照组未行干扰素干预治疗，分析总体疗效及两组对比的生存情况。结果:随访中位时间为34（10~50）个月，患者中位生存时间为37（31~45）个月，3年总体无进展生存（progressive free survival，PFS）、总生存（overall survivial，OS）分别为54.7%、66.8%。ASCT后试验组1年内无疾病复发，2年内复发率为12.5%；对照组1年内复发率为20%，2年内复发率为30%。结论:NHL患者在ASCT后给予重组人α-2b IFN早期干预治疗，患者耐受性好，可能降低移植后早期复发率。     

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.