Neurocognitive markers of suicidal ideation in patients with anxiety and mood disorders

Abstract

Objective: This study aims at identifying associations between cognitive function and suicidal ideation in the sample of patients with anxiety and mood disorders (AMD).

Methods: In sum, 186 (age = 39?±?12.3 years; 142 [76.3%] females) patients with AMD were enrolled in the study. Assessment included evaluation of socio-demographic information, medication use, anxiety and depression symptoms. Cognitive tests included measures of psychomotor performance and incidental learning using the Digit Symbol Test. Trail Making Tests respectively measured perceptual speed, task-switching and executive control. Additionally, 21 patients completed tests from the Cambridge Automated Neuropsychological Test Battery measuring set shifting (Interdimensional/extradimensional set-shift), executive planning (Stockings of Cambridge), and decision making (Cambridge Gamble Task [CGT]).

Results: Almost half (45.0%, n?=?86) of the study sample patients had experienced suicidal ideations. In multivariable regression analysis, suicidal ideation was associated with a greater overall proportion of bet and risk taking on the CGT task (β?=?0.726, p?=?.010 and β?=?0.634, p?=?.019), when controlling for socio-demographic characteristics, medication use, anxiety and depression symptoms.

Conclusions: Outpatients with AMD and suicidal ideation could be distinguished by the presence of cognitive deficits in the executive function domain, particularly in impulse-control and risk taking.     

右美托咪啶与芬太尼联合对ICU 腹部外科术后机械通气患者镇静镇痛的效果比较

目的:探讨右美托咪啶与芬太尼联合在ICU腹部外科术后机械通气患者中的应用效果及对镇静、镇痛作用的影响。方法:选择2018年5月—2019年6月ICU腹部外科术后机械通气患者62例,随机分为对照组(n=31例)和观察组(n=31例)。两组均采用芬太尼持续静脉泵入,对照组采用咪达唑仑镇静镇痛,观察组采用右美托咪啶镇静镇痛,比较两组镇痛镇静效果、镇静剂使用剂量、苏醒及达到镇静所需时间、血流动力学水平及安全性。结果:两组T2、T3时间点VAS评分分别为(2.40±0.31 vs 2.43±0.32和2.01±0.12 vs 2.05±0.15)、Ramsay量表评分分别(3.21±0.35 vs 3.20±0.33和3.01±0.25vs 3.00±0.24)均低于T1时间点(VAS评分2.94±0.69 vs 2.96±0.71;Ramsay量表评分3.57±0.61 vs 3.58±0.62)(P0.05);观察组右美托咪啶联合芬太尼镇痛镇静达到镇静所需时间(34.29±3.56) min长于对照组(23.63±3.21)(t=5.535,P=0.043);观察组镇静剂使用剂量(220.59±15.25)μg、苏醒时间(3.29±0.69)min均少(短)于对照组镇静剂使用剂量(386.44±18.92)μg、苏醒时间(7.56±1.21)min(t=6.294、6.092,P=0.023、0.025);两组T1、T2时间点心率[观察组T1(88.47±9.76)次/min、T2(86.41±9.43)次/min;对照组T1(89.53±10.41)次/min、T2(87.46±9.58)次/min]均高于T0时间点[观察组(78.78±4.35)次/min、对照组(79.12±4.41)次/min](P0.05);观察组T1、T2时间点MVP(79.58±5.71、87.53±6.76)mmHg高于对照组(74.12±4.69、75.26±5.61)mmHg(t=9.613、7.223,P=0.011、0.016);观察组的不良反应发生率为6.45%,与对照组的12.90%差异无统计学意义(χ~2=1.214, P=0.643)。结论:将右美托咪啶联合芬太尼用于ICU腹部外科术后机械通气患者中能获得良好的镇痛、镇静效果,缩短苏醒及达到镇静所需时间,血流动力学相对稳定,药物安全性较高,值得推广应用。     

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。     

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.