No abstract available.

No abstract available.

No abstract available.

No abstract available.
Tonsillectomy*

No abstract available.
Suicide, Attempted*

No abstract available.
Child* ; Cryptococcosis* ; Humans

This study aimed to differentiate gastric mucosal lesions such as the inflammatory gastric mucosa, gastric dysplasia and adenocarcinoma, using the CEA(carcinoembryonic antigen), AgNORS(Nucleolar organizer regions) and PCNA(proliferating cell nuclear antigen) stains. The tissue samples were taken from 30 cases of inflammatory gastric mucosa (19 gastritis and 11 regenerative hyperplasia), 28 cases of gastric dysplasia (9 mild dysplasia, 10 moderate dysplasia and 9 severe dysplasia) and 21 cases of gastric adenocarcinoma. The CEA was expressed in 16 of 21 adenocarcinomas(76%), but in neither inflammatory nor dysplastic gastric mucosae. The mean number of AgNORs per nucleus was 1.54 in inflammatory gastric mucosa, 1.80 in gastric dysplasia, and 1.88 in adenocarcinoma. The number of AgNORs was increased in dysplasia and adenocarcinoma compared to the inflammatory gastric mucosa without statistical significance. The percentage of the PCN A positive cells was 35.2% in inflammatory gastric mucosa, 44.1 % in gastric dysplasia, and 69.0% in gastric adenocarcinoma. The positivity of the PCNA was significantly increased in adenocarcinoma compared to the inflammatory gastric mucosa and dysplasia. In conclusion, the frequency of the CEA positive staining was increased in the gastric adenocarcinoma, and so CEA stain will be able to provide an additive method for the differential diagnosis between severe dysplasia and adenocarcinoma of the stomach.
Diagnosis, Differential ; Adenocarcinoma

The diagnostic value of GHRH in assessing GH secretion in biochemical GH sufficient short children was examined. GHRH (1microgram/kg i.v bolus) was given to three groups (upslope, trough, downslope) arbitrarily classified according to the basal pulsatile GH secretory pattern before GHRH administration. Cmax following GHRH administration were variable and overlapping. Two children in downslope group, three children in trough group, and one child in upslope group showed subnormal GH responses to GHRH administration despite of normal GH response to more than two classical GH provocative tests (Fig.1). The time of maximal GH response after GHRH administration (Tmax) in upslope group was significantly faster than those in other two groups (Fig.2). There was a highly significant correlation between AUC and Cmax (p<0.001) after GHRH administration (Fig.3) which suggests that AUC or Cmax can be used for parameters of GH response to GHRH each other. The AUC and Cmax after GHRH administration between three groups were significantly different (2764+/-579.1ng/ml min, 52.6 ng/ml, respectively in upslope group; 1645+/-383.9ng/ml min, 37.7+/-9.4ng/ml, respectively in downslope group; 1098+/-150.2ng/ml min, 26.3+/-4.5ng/ml, respectively in trough group)(p<0.005) (Fig.4, Table 1). In conclusion, GH responses to GHRH adminstration could be variable according to the basal GH secretory rhythm. Therefore, we should be cautious in interpreting the GH response to GHRH to evaluate the GH secretory capacity because subnormal GH response to GHRH administration could be observed even if normal GH response to classical GH provocative tests. In addition, the classification of these arbitary three groups (upslope, trough, and downslope) is remained to defined so as to promote the diagnostic value of GHRH in GH deficiency.
Area Under Curve ; Child* ; Classification ; Growth Hormone* ; Humans

No abstract available.
Chromosome Aberrations*

No abstract available.
Electroencephalography*