Erosive pustular dermatosis of the scalp in an adolescent with near‐total hair regrowth: Case report and review of the literature

Erosive pustular dermatosis of the scalp (EPDS) is an uncommon chronic inflammatory response to scalp trauma that usually resolves with cicatricial alopecia. It most commonly affects elderly patients with a history of actinic damage. Herein, we describe a 16‐year‐old girl with acrofacial dysostosis type 1 presenting after surgery with crusting purulent scalp lesions, whose clinical presentation and histopathologic findings were consistent with EPDS. A review of the literature on EPDS in children is also detailed.     

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.

Two cases of Klebsiella pneumoniae liver abscess necessitating liver resection for effective treatment

We report two British cases of liver abscess, due to Klebsiella pneumoniae and associated with synchronous infection elsewhere, which required liver resection for definitive treatment. They illustrate the geographic spread of aggressive K pneumoniae liver infection and demonstrate the importance of early aggressive treatment.     

3D-CRT 低剂量区 V5体积的大小对非小细胞肺癌患者肺功能的影响

目的：探讨3D-CRT 低剂量区 V5体积的大小对非小细胞肺癌患者肺功能的影响。方法：收集我院肿瘤科2014年4月～2015年10月收治的46例首次行三维适形放射治疗且顺利完成治疗的非小细胞肺癌患者，对每例患者分别在治疗前以及治疗后的1、3个月进行肺功能检测，分析3D-CRT 低剂量区 V5体积的大小与肺功能变化之间的关系。结果：放疗后1个月的 FEV1％、FVC％值明显高于放疗前且差异均具有显著性。放疗后1个月、3个月的 DLCO％值明显低于放疗前，且放疗前的与放疗后3个月的差异具有显著性；V5≦45％、45％55％三组放疗前后的 FEV1％值和 FVC％值比较差异均不具有显著性。V5≦45％、45％55％三组放疗前后的 DLCO％值均呈逐渐下降趋势，且 V5>55％组的放疗前后 DLCO％值比较差异具有显著性。而 V5≦45％组和45％55％时，DLCO％值降低的趋势更加显著。     

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.