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.

肿瘤坏死因子-α-308基因对导管相关性脓毒症患者病情的影响

目的探究肿瘤坏死因子-α(Tumornecrosis factor-α,TNF-α)-308基因对导管相关性脓毒症(Catheter related sepsis,CRS)患者病情的影响,旨在为临床治疗CRS提供科学依据。方法选取2017年7月-2018年10月于浙江大学医学院附属杭州市第一人民医院接受治疗的86例CRS患者为研究对象,按照是否并发多器官功能障碍综合征将患者分为试验组和对照组,对照组共48例,未并发多器官功能障碍综合征,试验组共38例,并发多器官功能障碍综合征,分析两组患者TNF-α-308基因多态性差异,使用多因素Logistic回归分析CRS患者并发多器官功能障碍综合征的危险因素。结果试验组GA基因型频率34.21%、AA基因型频率50.00%、高G等位基因频率18.42%均高于对照组,GG基因型频率52.63%、A等位基因频率28.95%均低于对照组,差异均具有统计学意义(P<0.05);多因素Logistic回归分析结果显示,低GG基因型频率、低G等位基因频率、高GA基因型频率、高AA基因型频率、高A等位基因频率是CRS患者并发多器官功能障碍综合征的危险因素(P<0.05)。结论TNF-α-308基因与CRS患者病情密切相关,GG基因型频率和G等位基因频率降低,GA基因型频率、AA基因型频率、A等位基因频率升高会加重患者的病情,增加多器官功能障碍综合征的发生风险,临床上应该加以重视。     

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。     

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.