Sex differences in the clinical presentation and management of airflow obstruction.

The aim of the present study was to explore differences in the clinical expression, clinical diagnoses and management of airway diseases in a primary-care setting. Patients aged >or=35 yrs who had ever smoked were enrolled when they presented for any reason to one of eight rural primary-care practices. Respiratory symptom questionnaires and spirometry were administered. In total, 1,034 patients had acceptable and reproducible spirometry, of whom 550 (53%) were males and 484 (47%) were females. Males smoked more than females (41.2 versus 29.2 pack-yrs) respectively, and were more likely to have a pre-bronchodilator forced expiratory volume in one second/forced vital capacity <0.70 at 22.4 versus 11.8%, respectively. However, more females than males reported breathlessness (51.0 versus 42.8%, respectively), a prior diagnosis compatible with airflow obstruction and taking respiratory medications (23.4 versus 14.9%, respectively). In conclusion, the current results suggest that females are more likely than males to report breathlessness and be prescribed respiratory medications independent of differences in the severity of airflow obstruction.     

无（外侧）额叶皮质是否更好？额叶病变患者解决洞察力问题

最近提出的关于额叶功能的理论认为前额叶皮质，尤其是其背外侧面在确定适合一项特殊任务的一系列反应中起重要作用，并在选择中使上述反应发生偏差。这些活动事实上是为任何类型的非常规任务而执行，而不考虑内容的差别。本研究旨在通过一项解决“洞察力”问题的测试任务（即火柴杆算术作业），来验证Frith“塑造反应空间”假说的预测效力。从Knoblich等人对健康人不能解决火柴杆问题的解释和Frith关于额叶背外侧皮质作用的理论，作者推导出与直觉相左的预测，即对这些相对复杂的任务，外侧额叶皮质局部损伤的患者可能比1组健康受试者完成得更好。要求35例经CT或MRI扫描证实为单个局部脑损伤的患者（年龄为26—65岁）和23例健康受试者（年龄为34—62岁）完成火柴杆作业。研究结果似乎与理论上的预测相一致，虽然仅有43％的健康受试者能解决最困难的火柴杆问题（“C类”），但是却有82％的额叶外侧损伤患者完成了类似问题（Fisher精确概率检验，P〈0．05）。总之，对Frith和Knoblich等人理论的结合进行了确证。     

Report of a National Conference on Donation after Cardiac Death

A national conference on organ donation after cardiac death (DCD) was convened to expand the practice of DCD in the continuum of quality end-of-life care. This national conference affirmed the ethical propriety of DCD as not violating the dead donor rule. Further, by new developments not previously reported, the conference resolved controversy regarding the period of circulatory cessation that determines death and allows administration of pre-recovery pharmacologic agents, it established conditions of DCD eligibility, it presented current data regarding the successful transplantation of organs from DCD, it proposed a new framework of data reporting regarding ischemic events, it made specific recommendations to agencies and organizations to remove barriers to DCD, it brought guidance regarding organ allocation and the process of informed consent and it set an action plan to address media issues. When a consensual decision is made to withdraw life support by the attending physician and patient or by the attending physician and a family member or surrogate (particularly in an intensive care unit), a routine opportunity for DCD should be available to honor the deceased donor's wishes in every donor service area (DSA) of the United States.