Objective To construct and validate a risk prediction model of hypoglycemia in emergency intensive care unit(EICU)patients.Methods A retrospective study was conducted among 2093 EICU patients in a department of a tertiary A hospital in Urumqi from January to December 2022,as research subjects.Univariate analysis and logistic regression analysis were used to determine the risk factors for hypoglycemia,and R software was used to establish a nomogram prediction model.The area urder the receiver operator characteristic(ROC)curve was used to test the model differentiation,and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test was used to test the goodness of fit of the model.The risk prediction model was validated by the prospective study with inclusion of 699 EICU patients admitted to the same hospital from January to March 2023.Results The model variables included whether hypoglycemia occurred in the past year,acute physiology and chronic health evaluation Ⅱ score at admission,coefficient of variation of blood glucose,history of renal disease,history of diabetes,insulin treatment,and serum creatinine.The Hosmer-Lemeshow test of the model was P=0.497;the area urder the ROC curve was 0.820(95％CI:0.794～0.847);the best cutoff value was 0.495;the sensitivity was 0.856;the specificity was 0.751.The model validation results showed that the Hosmer-Lemeshow test P=0.537;the area urder the ROC curve was 0.859(95％CI:0.819～0.898);the best cutoff value was 0.597;the sensitivity was 0.840;the specificity was 0.757.Conclusion The established nomogram prediction model helps clinical staff to screen patients at high risk of hypoglycemia and provides a reference for optimizing the management of hypoglycemia in EICU patients.

Objective:To analyze the effects of different dose calculation grid size of Monaco system on the physical and biological dosimetry of target area and organ at risk (OAR) in T 4 nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Methods:A total of 18 patients with stage T 4 nasopharyngeal carcinoma who received radiotherapy in the Department of Radiotherapy of Yunnan Cancer Hospital from October 2020 to April 2022 were selected to complete the delineation of target areas and OAR in the Monaco 5.11.03 system, and the volumetric intensity modulated arc therapy (VMAT) plan was developed on the 3 mm grid with the optimization mode of target area priority. The 3 mm grid group plan was replicated without changing any other parameters, and the physical plan was re-established on the 1, 2, 4 and 5 mm grids, and then the five plans were normalized to the prescription dose to cover 95% of the target volume. The planning time, D 2%, D 50%, D 98%, conformity index (CI), homogeneity index (HI), gradient index (GI), tumor control probability (TCP), D 2% and D mean of important OAR around the target area were calculated and statistically analyzed. Results:Planning primary tumor gross target volume (PGTVp) : The D 2% of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mm groups were (76.94±0.66), (75.98±0.76), (75.56±0.67), (75.67±0.73) and (75.94±0.85) Gy, respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( F=9.86, P<0.001). The CI of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mm groups were 0.75±0.05, 0.78±0.04, 0.78±0.05, 0.79±0.04 and 0.78±0.04, respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( F=2.61, P=0.041). There were statistically significant differences in D 50%, D 98%, HI, equivalent uniform dose (EUD) and tumor control probability (TCP) among the groups ( H=17.14, P=0.002; F=9.35, P<0.001; H=25.43, P<0.001; F=5.85, P<0.001; H=17.65, P=0.001). There was no statistically significant difference in GI among the groups ( P>0.05). Pairwise comparison showed that D 2% in 2, 3, 4, 5 mm groups compared with 1 mm group, D 50% in 5 mm group compared with 2, 3 mm groups, D 98% in 4 mm group compared with 1, 2 mm groups, D 98% in 5 mm group compared with 1, 2, 3 mm groups, CI in 5 mm group compared with 1 mm group, HI in 2, 3, 4, 5 mm groups compared with 1 mm group, EUD in 3 mm group was compared with 1 mm group, EUD in 5 mm group compared with 2, 3 mm groups, TCP in 3 mm group compared with 1 mm group, and TCP in 5 mm group compared with 3 mm group, there were statistically significant differences (all P<0.05). Planning nodal gross target volume (PGTVn) : The D 2% of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mm groups were (76.36±0.59), (75.36±0.62), (75.04±0.68), (75.25±0.72) and (75.39±0.77) Gy, respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( F=10.32, P<0.001). The HI of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mm groups were 1.08 (1.08, 1.08), 1.07 (1.06, 1.07), 1.06 (1.06, 1.07), 1.06 (1.06, 1.07), 1.06 (1.06, 1.07), 1.06 (1.06, 1.08), respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( H=22.00, P<0.001) ; There were statistically significant differences in D 50%, D 98% and EUD among the groups ( H=11.79, P=0.019; H=20.49, P<0.001; F=12.14, P=0.016). Pairwise comparison showed that there were statistically significant differences in D 2% between 2, 3, 4, 5 mm groups and 1 mm group, D 98% between 4 mm group and 1 mm group, D 98% between 5 mm group and 1, 2 mm groups, HI between 2, 3, 4 mm groups and 1 mm group, and EUD between 3 mm group and 1 mm group (all P<0.05). Planning primary tumor clinical target volume 1 (PCTVp1) : The D 2% of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mm groups were (76.59±0.63), (75.64±0.65), (75.64±0.98), (75.41±0.70) and (75.71±0.84) Gy, respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( F=9.53, P<0.001). The D 50% of 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 mm groups were (72.09±0.34), (71.85±0.39), (71.82±0.45), (72.04±0.56), (72.43±0.66) Gy, respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( F=4.20, P=0.019). There was no statistically significant difference in the other indexes among the groups (all P>0.05). Pairwise comparison showed that there were statistically significant differences in D 2% between 2, 3, 4, 5 mm groups and 1 mm group, and in D 50% between 2, 3 mm groups and 1 mm group (all P<0.05). Planning nodal clinical target volume 1 (PCTVn1) : There were no statistically significant differences in all indexes among the groups (all P>0.05). Planning clinical target volume 2 (PCTV2) : The D 2% of 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 mm groups were (75.57±0.50), (74.87±0.67), (74.51±0.51), (74.61±0.63) and (75.00±0.74) Gy, respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( F=8.27, P<0.001). Pairwise comparison showed that the D 2% of the 2, 3, 4 mm groups were significantly different from that of the 1 mm group (all P<0.05). The calculation time of physical plan in 1, 2, 4 and 5 mm groups was 987.00 (848.00, 1 091.00), 120.50 (99.75, 134.00), 26.00 (24.00, 34.25) and 21.50 (18.75, 34.75) s, respectively, with a statistically significant difference ( H=61.62, P<0.001). Pairwise comparison showed that there were statistically significant differences in the calculation time between 4 mm group and 1, 2 mm groups, 5 mm group and 1, 2 mm groups (all P<0.05). There was no statistically significant difference in the dosimetric parameters of OAR around the target area among the groups (all P>0.05) . Conclusion:The physical dose and biological dose of the important OAR around the target area and the target area change with the change of dose calculation grid size when formulating the physical plan of radiotherapy for T 4 nasopharyngeal carcinoma. Considering the quality of the physical plan and the calculation time, when the Monaco system formulates the VMAT plan for T 4 nasopharyngeal carcinoma patients, the plan can be optimized on the 3 mm computing grid and copied to the 1 mm computing grid for recalculation.