Oral Dispersible System: A New Approach in Drug Delivery System

Dosage form is a mean used for the delivery of drug to a living body. In order to get the desired effect the drug should be delivered to its site of action at such rate and concentration to achieve the maximum therapeutic effect and minimum adverse effect. Since oral route is still widely accepted route but having a common drawback of difficulty in swallowing of tablets and capsules. Therefore a lot of research has been done on novel drug delivery systems. This review is about oral dispersible tablets a novel approach in drug delivery systems that are now a day''s more focused in formulation world, and laid a new path that, helped the patients to build their compliance level with the therapy, also reduced the cost and ease the administration especially in case of pediatrics and geriatrics. Quick absorption, rapid onset of action and reduction in drug loss properties are the basic advantages of this dosage form.     

Atypical Abnormal Pulmonary Vein Drainage with Atrial Septal Defect: Surgical Treatment

Sinus venosus atrial septal defect (SV‐ASD) usually coexists with partial anomalous pulmonary vein connection (PAPVC). It is a difficult diagnosis in transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) due to eccentric position of defects. We present a rare case of atypical anatomical variation in PAPVC, which was never described before. Two right pulmonary veins drained into superior vena cava, which overrode SV‐ASD and interatrial septum, a third pulmonary vein into the right atrium. Complete diagnosis could not be set after TTE, nor transesophageal echocardiography, whereas angio‐CT was finally conclusive. This diagnostic approach allowed the surgical planning.     

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.