Objective To assess the clinical application value and advantages of DSCT Angiography on artery injury in Extremities. Methods Seven suspected patients with artery injury in extremities underwent DSCT Angiography, including three cases on artery injury of upper extremity and four cases on artery injury of lower extremity. All the seven patients were performed with DSCT Angiography after the operation. The data of thin slice cross section were reconstructed by MPR, MIP and VR, employing Somatom Definition, German. Contrast-concentration was 350 or 370mg i/ml, total amount was 80-100ml and injection rates was 4.0 ml/s. Results All the images of angiography displayed many clear blood vessels and smooth vessels verge, contrasting with surrounding issues well. They also displayed no ladder artifact or truncation artifact. The image quality was good enough to meet the requirements of clinical diagnosis. Meanwhile the coincidence between preoperative diagnosis and postoperative diagnosis was 100%. Conclusion To suspected patients with artery injury in extremities, DSCT Angiography may be the first choice. Three-dimensional reconstruction angiographys by means of different reconstruction techniques are very helpful in diagnosing and formulating treatment perscription.

Inhibition of human cytochrome P450 (CYP) can lead to drug-drug interactions, resulting in serious adverse reactions.It is therefore crucial to accurately predict the inhibitory power of a given compound against a particular CYP isoform.This study compared 11 machine learning methods and 2 deep learning models based on different molecular representations.The experimental results showed that the CatBoost machine learning model based on RDKit_2d+Morgan outperformed other models in terms of accuracy and Mathews coefficient, and even outperformed previously published models.Moreover, the experimental results also showed that the CatBoost model not only had superior performance, but also consumed less computational resources.Finally, this study combined the top 3 performing models as co_model, which slightly outperformed the CatBoost model alone in terms of performance.

Objective: To investigate the differences of clinicopathological features, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis between patients with extra-gastrointestinal stromal tumors (EGIST) and duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (DGIST). Methods: A retrospective case - control study was performed. Case inclusion criteria: (1) tumor confirmed by histology and pathology; (2) primary tumor locating in the extra - gastrointestinal tract or duodenum; (3) without other synchronous tumors; (4) complete clinical and pathological data. Clinical data of 20 EGIST patients and 32 DGIST patients from March 2011 to September 2016 at Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine were retrospectively collected and analyzed. The observational parameters included clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and prognosis conditions. Continuous data of abnormal distribution were expressed as median (range) and compared using the Mann-Whitney U-test. Survival curves were drawn by the Kaplan-Meier method and compared with the Log-rank test. Results: Of the 20 EGIST patients, 8 were males and 12 were females with age of 61.0 (30.0 to 86.0) years and of the 32 DGIST patients, 12 were males and 20 were females with age of 55.5 (27.0 to 70.0) years. Compared with DGIST patients, EGIST patients were older (U=188.000, P=0.012], had larger tumor size [10.0 (3.0 to 29.0) cm vs. 4.0 (1.5 to 10.0) cm, U=98.500, P<0.001] and higher ratio of high risk classification [85.0% (17/20) vs. 12.5% (4/32), χ²=26.870, P<0.001]. Among the 20 EGIST patients, 5 were diagnosed with distal metastasis and received imatinib (400 mg/d), and the other 15 patients underwent radical resection who were included in survival analysis. All the 32 DGIST patients underwent radical resection. The median follow-up of whole group was 43 (14 to 76) months. The 3-year recurrence/metastasis-free survival rate of 15 cases undergoing radical resection in the EGIST group was 85.6%, which was lower than that of the DGIST group (88.6%), and the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.745). There was no significant difference in the 3-year overall survival rate between the EGIST group (92.9%) and the DGIST group (100%) (P=0.271). Conclusions As compared to DGIST, EGIST mostly occurs in those with older age, larger tumor size and higher risk grade. The prognosis of EGIST patients after radical resection is similar to that of DGIST patients.

Objective To investigate the differences of clinicopathological features, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis between patients with extra?gastrointestinal stromal tumors (EGIST) and duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (DGIST). Methods A retrospective case?control study was performed. Case inclusion criteria: (1) tumor confirmed by histology and pathology; (2) primary tumor locating in the extra?gastrointestinal tract or duodenum; (3) without other synchronous tumors; (4) complete clinical and pathological data. Clinical data of 20 EGIST patients and 32 DGIST patients from March 2011 to September 2016 at Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine were retrospectively collected and analyzed. The observational parameters included clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and prognosis conditions. Continuous data of abnormal distribution were expressed as median (range) and compared using the Mann?Whitney U?test. Survival curves were drawn by the Kaplan?Meier method and compared with the Log?rank test. Results Of the 20 EGIST patients, 8 were males and 12 were females with age of 61.0 (30.0 to 86.0) years and of the 32 DGIST patients, 12 were males and 20 were females with age of 55.5 (27.0 to 70.0) years. Compared with DGIST patients, EGIST patients were older (U=188.000, P=0.012], had larger tumor size [10.0 (3.0 to 29.0) cm vs. 4.0 (1.5 to 10.0) cm, U=98.500, P<0.001] and higher ratio of high risk classification [85.0% (17/20) vs. 12.5% (4/32), χ2=26.870, P<0.001]. Among the 20 EGIST patients, 5 were diagnosed with distal metastasis and received imatinib (400 mg/d), and the other 15 patients underwent radical resection who were included in survival analysis. All the 32 DGIST patients underwent radical resection. The median follow?up of whole group was 43 (14 to 76) months. The 3?year recurrence/metastasis?free survival rate of 15 cases undergoing radical resection in the EGIST group was 85.6%, which was lower than that of the DGIST group (88.6%), and the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.745). There was no significant difference in the 3?year overall survival rate between the EGIST group (92.9%) and the DGIST group (100%) (P=0.271). Conclusions As compared to DGIST, EGIST mostly occurs in those with older age, larger tumor size and higher risk grade. The prognosis of EGIST patients after radical resection is similar to that of DGIST patients.

Objective To investigate the differences of clinicopathological features, diagnosis, treatment and prognosis between patients with extra?gastrointestinal stromal tumors (EGIST) and duodenal gastrointestinal stromal tumors (DGIST). Methods A retrospective case?control study was performed. Case inclusion criteria: (1) tumor confirmed by histology and pathology; (2) primary tumor locating in the extra?gastrointestinal tract or duodenum; (3) without other synchronous tumors; (4) complete clinical and pathological data. Clinical data of 20 EGIST patients and 32 DGIST patients from March 2011 to September 2016 at Department of Gastrointestinal Surgery, Ruijin Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine were retrospectively collected and analyzed. The observational parameters included clinicopathological characteristics, treatment and prognosis conditions. Continuous data of abnormal distribution were expressed as median (range) and compared using the Mann?Whitney U?test. Survival curves were drawn by the Kaplan?Meier method and compared with the Log?rank test. Results Of the 20 EGIST patients, 8 were males and 12 were females with age of 61.0 (30.0 to 86.0) years and of the 32 DGIST patients, 12 were males and 20 were females with age of 55.5 (27.0 to 70.0) years. Compared with DGIST patients, EGIST patients were older (U=188.000, P=0.012], had larger tumor size [10.0 (3.0 to 29.0) cm vs. 4.0 (1.5 to 10.0) cm, U=98.500, P<0.001] and higher ratio of high risk classification [85.0% (17/20) vs. 12.5% (4/32), χ2=26.870, P<0.001]. Among the 20 EGIST patients, 5 were diagnosed with distal metastasis and received imatinib (400 mg/d), and the other 15 patients underwent radical resection who were included in survival analysis. All the 32 DGIST patients underwent radical resection. The median follow?up of whole group was 43 (14 to 76) months. The 3?year recurrence/metastasis?free survival rate of 15 cases undergoing radical resection in the EGIST group was 85.6%, which was lower than that of the DGIST group (88.6%), and the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.745). There was no significant difference in the 3?year overall survival rate between the EGIST group (92.9%) and the DGIST group (100%) (P=0.271). Conclusions As compared to DGIST, EGIST mostly occurs in those with older age, larger tumor size and higher risk grade. The prognosis of EGIST patients after radical resection is similar to that of DGIST patients.