舞动治疗：一种自下而上的精神分裂症干预探索

皮层-基底节-丘脑网络与脑岛网络属于感觉运动相关网络, 这两个网络的改变可能是导致精神分裂症的重要原因。目前主流研究与临床干预聚焦于患者的高级脑区异常, 对感觉运动系统的关注不足。对健康个体的研究发现舞蹈训练对感觉运动相关脑网络具有显著提升作用, 并自下而上地促进高级功能。以上研究提示舞蹈训练可能是干预精神分裂症、改善患者认知功能的新途径。本研究拟借助多模态磁共振成像技术, 以精神分裂症感觉运动相关网络为着力点, 通过分析精神分裂症患者在舞蹈训练前后的脑影像、临床症状及认知行为的改变, 揭示舞蹈训练临床干预的神经机制。     

从诺贝尔生理与医学奖提名看亚洲的医学地位

诺贝尔生理与医学奖是生命科学领域声誉最高的一个奖项,获得者的多少常被作为衡量一个国家科技实力的一项指标.至今,亚洲的科学家仅有1人获得了该项荣誉,但是已经有多名科学家获得了提名,通过描述从1901年到1951年之间诺贝尔生理与医学奖的提名情况来评价亚洲的医学地位.     

父母教养方式与幼儿焦虑关系的三水平元分析

以0~7岁学前儿童为样本,采用元分析方法考察父母教养方式（积极和消极）与幼儿焦虑之间的关系。通过文献检索,共获得26项研究,含136个独立效应量,被试总数达13565名。由于部分研究中存在多个效应量,当前研究针对两种教养方式分别构建了三级元分析模型。主效应检验发现,父母积极教养方式与幼儿焦虑呈显著负相关,而父母消极教养方式与幼儿焦虑呈显著正相关。调节效应检验发现,父母积极教养方式与幼儿焦虑之间的相关受到父亲受教育水平和幼儿生活质量的调节,但不受幼儿性别、母亲受教育水平和焦虑测量工具类型的影响。此外父母消极教养方式与幼儿焦虑之间的相关受到焦虑测量工具类型的调节,但这一相关不受幼儿性别、生活质量和父母受教育水平的调节。上述结果表明,父母教养方式与幼儿焦虑之间的关系密切,也指出了将来的研究过程中要关注父亲受教育水平、幼儿生活质量和焦虑测量工具类型在两者关系中的作用。     

早期胃癌直径、淋巴结微转移与组织E1AF、MMP-7mRNA表达临床研究

早期胃癌内镜下切除的安全性取决于严格的术前分期、肿瘤直径及有无淋巴结转移。研究证实早期胃癌组织分型、肿瘤直径、淋巴结微转移与E1AF、MMP-7mRNA表达具有相关性,并使其具有侵袭转移的生物行为。根据临床病理特征及相关组织内E1AFmRNA、MMP-7mRNA表达选择治疗方式,以获取更好疗效。     

早期胃癌直径、淋巴结微转移与组织E1AF、MMP-7mRNA表达临床研究

早期胃癌内镜下切除的安全性取决于严格的术前分期、肿瘤直径及有无淋巴结转移.研究证实早期胃癌组织分型、肿瘤直径、淋巴结微转移与E1AF、MMP-7mRNA表达具有相关性,并使其具有侵袭转移的生物行为.根据临床病理特征及相关组织内E1AFmRNA、MMp-7mRNA表达选择治疗方式,以获取更好疗效.     

Hierarchical Position, Gender, Accident Severity, and Causal Attribution

The two studies reported here confirmed the role of the attributor's hierarchical level in causal attributions about accidents in different types of organizations. In both studies, supervisors vs. subordinates had to analyze a minor work accident vs. a serious one. The first study used male vs. female subjects, whereas the second compared the target's position in the same (in-group) vs. different (out-group) hierarchical level as the attributor. In all cases, more internal attributions than external ones were given to explain the accident. These results demonstrate a tendency toward defensive attribution, whereby people tend to protect themselves or their group from blame or prejudice (Shaver, 1970a). This self-protective attribution bias was found to increase with accident severity, particularly in Study 2. The conclusion offers some suggestions for accident analysis and prevention.     

Civil disobedience and legal responsibility

Conclusion In Section One the automatic ratification of existing law as immediately self-validating is shown to undermine the very purpose of law - the surpassing of arbitrariness and of Czar-like ukases. In Sections Two and Three there is an attempt to explore the justification or grounding that can be given for the existing laws and civil disobedience, respectively. In both cases, the justification has been given in terms of fundamental human dignity which should never be violated by empirical laws. Only when such a violation does occur can civil disobedience be justified. Therefore, the rationale for, and motivation of, both a legal system and civil disobedience are the same.However, one does not so easily resolve the opposition between the two. For the law itself is proclaimed apodictically, without the reservation that one may with impunity break the law and commit an act of civil disobedience whenever the law violates one's conscience. Otherwise, we do not have a rule of law but instead anarchy. For, as Jesus has said and Abraham Lincoln paraphrased it: A kingdom (house) divided against itself will not stand. The law cannot declare that it is legal to break the law without incapacitating itself. The law must punish its violators to be a valid law; without powers of enforcing sanctions against violators the law is no law.However, we must not consider for this reason that those who are responsible for making, interpreting, and enforcing the law (on the one hand) and those who are civilly disobedient (on the other hand) are working at cross purposes. Both are concerned with justice. The civilly disobedient individual (who has not given up on the existing legal system and therefore who stops short of being a revolutionary) is concerned with improving the existing legal system. He envisions his role as therapeutic rather than destructive. He believes that the ideal of justice is being violated in some way in the existing laws (even though these laws may have been found Constitutional by the Supreme Court). He therefore makes of himself a martyr, bearing witness to the truth, and hoping thereby to educate and enlighten and to move men of good will - in short, to effect a change in the law.Before an individual who respects the rule of law should be willing to be civilly disobedient he must be convinced of the violation of basic human rights in the law. He also must consider whether civil disobedience is the most effective means of producing the desired change. But beyond the pragmatic consideration of the most effective means to produce the desired end, there is also the question of what is most meaningful and suitable for him personally in living in conformity with the categorical imperative. Discussions of civil disobedience which limit themselves to questions of practical consequences do a great disservice to such actions. For, must we not admire those who resisted Hitler, even though they realized that their actions were futile in terms of changing the law and might even mean their deaths?In a free society, dedicated to the rule of law, all citizens are concerned with justice. Those entrusted with the responsibility of enforcing the law obviously must do just that, so that violators of the law have to be punished. However, when legislators and judges notice that some of the most perspicacious and conscientious individuals are openly violating existing laws in the name of a higher law, they should also make a serious reappraisal of their positions, looking to see whether they may not have become morally insensitive or careless. Indeed, the real value of a free society is its flexibility and tolerance of dissent, even that of civil disobedience, which can serve to dramatize forcefully, deep-seated convictions concerning the injustice of certain laws on the books. It is true that fanatics from time immemorial have been willing to sacrifice much in the name of their cause. But whenever one finds that there is an individual who is willing to sacrifice much without the hope of personal advantage and who is also willing to provide arguments in defense of his position, society would do well to listen to his words and actions.Without the constant delving scrutiny and criticism of existing laws, there cannot be true legal responsibility. Therefore, the civilly disobedient individual, who is willing to put his head on the block in order to abrogate unjust laws, is in fact the legally responsible individual par excellence.