To summarise Professor WANG Xixing's experience in treating brain tumour from emotions and minds. Professor WANG regarded abnormal emotions and minds as the key to the treatment of brain tumor. Emotions and minds internal damage lead to malfunction of the five zang organs， resulting in phlegm， stasis， dampness， toxicity and other pathogenic qi gathering in the brain and developing into brain tumour. The treatment advocated regulating qi of the five zang organs and dispelling phlegm， blood stasis， dampness and toxins at the same time. The brain tumour is classified into four syndromes： heart-spleen deficiency， liver depression and spleen deficiency， failure of the heart and kidney to interact， and liver-kidney yin deficiency， with Guipi Yangshen Decoction （归脾养神汤） to fortify the spleen and nourish the heart， Guishao Shunzhi Decoction （归芍顺志汤） to soothe the liver and fortify the spleen， Liangui Tongshen Decoction （连桂通神汤） to restore interaction between the heart and the kidney， and Zishui Qingmu Huashen Decoction （滋水清木化神汤） to nourish the kidney and clear liver. At the same time， it was emphasised that the patient's emotional changes should be paid attention to， and psychological guidance should be given at the right time， so as to overcome the disease with emotions and mind.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To evaluate the endometrial implantation window in patients with recurrent implantation failure using endometrial receptive array(ERA)sequencing or endometrial histological detection methods,and to explore the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness analysis of two technologies for improving clinical outcomes in such patients.Methods:A retrospective cohort study was conducted on clinical data of 125 patients diagnosed with repeated implantation failure in Gansu Maternal and Child Health Hospital from January 2018 to December 2022.According to whether endometrial receptivity testing was accepted and different detection techniques were used,they were divided into a control group(n=36),a genomic group(n=35),and a histological group(n=54).The clinical data and pregnancy outcomes of the three groups were compared.Results:①The results of one-way ANOVA showed that the embryo implantation rate in the genomic group and histological group was significantly higher than that in the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).There was no sta-tistically significant difference in embryo implantation rate between genomic and histological groups(P=0.48).②There was no statistically significant difference in clinical pregnancy rate and live birth rate among the three groups(P＞0.05).③Log rank test showed:The time for 50％of patients to reach live labor was significantly shorter than that of the control group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05);There was no sta-tistically significant difference in the time to live birth in 50％of patients between the genomic and histological groups of 50％of patients(P＞0.05).④The average number of embryos transferred in the control group was significantly higher than that in the genomic and histological groups,with statistical significance(P＜0.05).The cost of genomic patients was significantly higher than that of histology group,and the difference was statistically significant(P＜0.05).Conclusions:①Endometrial implantation window detection is feasible for patients with re-peated implantation failure,which can effectively shorten the time to live birth and reduce the number of transplan-ted embryos;②Both ERA sequencing and endometrial histology detection have limitations as methods to evaluate endometrial implantation window,and it is not clear which detection method has more advantages in accuracy and practicability.

Objective:To study the value of myocardial perfusion imaging (MPI) and coronary flow reserve (CFR) combined with coronary artery calcium score (CACS) in the diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD).Methods:From January 2019 to December 2020, 96 confirmed or suspective CAD patients (65 males, 31 females; age: 30-81 years) who completed rest/stress MPI, CFR and CACS defection in Fuwai Central China Cardiovascular Hospital were retrospectively analyzed. Coronary angiography (CAG) was used as the diagnostic standard to calculate the sensitivity and accuracy of MPI, CFR and MPI/CFR combined with CACS in the diagnosis of CAD. The χ2 test was used to compare the diagnostic efficiency of different methods. Results:The diagnostic sensitivity of MPI was 76.06%(54/71), and the accuracy was 75.00%(72/96), while the sensitivity increased to 97.18%(69/71; χ2=13.67, P<0.001) and the accuracy increased to 87.50%(84/96; χ2=4.92, P=0.020) with significant differences after combined with CACS. The sensitivity and accuracy of CFR were 91.55%(65/71)and 87.50%(84/96), which increased to 97.18%(69/71; χ2=2.12, P=0.137) and 89.58%(86/96; χ2=0.21, P=0.411) with no significant differences after combined with CACS. The sensitivity of MPI in the diagnosis of three-vessel CAD was 70.00%(21/30), which increased to 100%(30/30; χ2=7.75, P=0.004) after combined with CACS; while the sensitivity of MPI combined with CACS in the diagnosis of single-vessel and double-vessel CAD were not significantly improved ( χ2 values: 3.29, 1.51, P values: 0.114, 0.416). Conclusion:The combination of MPI and CACS can significantly improve the diagnostic efficiency of CAD, contributed by the improvement of the diagnostic sensitivity in three-vessel disease; whereas the diagnostic efficiency of CFR for CAD is not significantly improved after combined with CACS.