Studies have suggested that the nucleus accumbens (NAc) is implicated in the pathophysiology of major depression; however, the regulatory strategy that targets the NAc to achieve an exclusive and outstanding anti-depression benefit has not been elucidated. Here, we identified a specific reduction of cyclic adenosine monophosphate (cAMP) in the subset of dopamine D1 receptor medium spiny neurons (D1-MSNs) in the NAc that promoted stress susceptibility, while the stimulation of cAMP production in NAc D1-MSNs efficiently rescued depression-like behaviors. Ketamine treatment enhanced cAMP both in D1-MSNs and dopamine D2 receptor medium spiny neurons (D2-MSNs) of depressed mice, however, the rapid antidepressant effect of ketamine solely depended on elevating cAMP in NAc D1-MSNs. We discovered that a higher dose of crocin markedly increased cAMP in the NAc and consistently relieved depression 24 h after oral administration, but not a lower dose. The fast onset property of crocin was verified through multicenter studies. Moreover, crocin specifically targeted at D1-MSN cAMP signaling in the NAc to relieve depression and had no effect on D2-MSN. These findings characterize a new strategy to achieve an exclusive and outstanding anti-depression benefit by elevating cAMP in D1-MSNs in the NAc, and provide a potential rapid antidepressant drug candidate, crocin.

Objective To explore the accuracy of the multiplication coefficient method and the moment synthesis method for determining the spatial position of the center of gravity(CoG)of the human body based on machine vision.Methods The mechanical measurement platform was built,and the three-dimensional(3D)human body CoG measurement method under static and dynamic conditions were designed to calculate the space coordinates of the CoG.Through experiments,the calculation accuracy of the multiplication coefficient and moment synthesis method were studied and analyzed.Results In the static experiments,the calculation results of the torque synthesis method were more accurate than those of the multiplication coefficient method for each dimension.The errors in the 3D CoG of the human body in the X,Y,and Z directions calculated using the torque synthesis method were 3.9%,4.1%,and 8.5%,respectively.In the dynamic experiment,the average and relative errors of the torque synthesis method in the X or Y direction were lower than those of the multiplication-coefficient method.When the action decomposition method was used to analyze the height direction of the CoG along the Z axis,the final rendering effect of the torque synthesis method improved.Conclusions The accuracy of the 3D CoG calculated by the moment synthesis method was relatively high,and was closer to the measurement data of the mechanical measurement platform.The 3D CoG calculated using the moment synthesis method can replace the mechanical measurement platform and can be used in subsequent studies.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective It conducted a rapid health technology assessment to evaluate the comparative safety,efficacy and economy of tumor treating fields(TTFields)combined with temozolomide treatment versus temozolomide(TMZ)alone for patients with glioblastoma(GBM).Methods It provided an extensive electronic search of databases,including PubMed,Embase,Cochrane Library,CNKI,and WanFang Data,to collect clinical evidence and health economic evaluations related to the,safety,efficacy,and economy of TTFields for Glioblastoma patients.The search covered literature from inception to July,2023,and assessed the risk of bias in the included studies.Descriptive analyses and data summaries were performed.Results A total of 19 references were included,comprising 5 randomized controlled trials,3 retrospective studies,8 systematic reviews or meta-analyses,and 3 cost-effectiveness analysis(CEA)studies.The quality of the literature evidence was heterogeneous.Recent meta-analyses mostly support the conclusion that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment provides a survival benefit compared to standard TMZ alone.However,the cost-effectiveness analysis literature from 2 countries showed different results,likely due to differences in socioeconomic levels,health systems,and heterogeneity in sources,model selection,and parameter selection.The majority of evidence supports the benefits of TTFields combined with TMZ for the treatment of GBM patients,but the results of CEAs tend to favor the view that this therapy is not cost-effective.Conclusion Current evidence indicates that TTFields combined with TMZ treatment have better safety and efficacy.However,there is still no consensus on whether it is cost-effective.

Objective To explore the implementation effect of PDCA(plan-do-check-action)style training of severe ultrasound and hemodynamics in standardized training(residential training)for residents majoring in internal medicine on improving their clinical decision-making ability.Methods A retrospective research method was conducted,60 residents in Xinyang Central Hospital from July 2017 to July 2023 were selected as the research objects,and patients were randomly divided into experimental group and control group,with 30 residents in each group.After the routine entrance education,the experimental group applied the PDCA mode training of severe ultrasound and hemodynamics.The control group was trained with the training objectives and requirements of the department of critical care medicine in the contents and standards of standardized training for internal medicine residents for 2 months.At the end of the training period,the residents of the two groups were assessed and investigated by questionnaire,and the differences of theoretical knowledge assessment,clinical practice skills assessment,case assessment scores and satisfaction between the two groups were compared.Results The results of theoretical knowledge examination,diagnosis and differential diagnosis,and clinical decision-making in the experimental group were significantly higher than those in the control group(theoretical knowledge examination score:90.5±2.7 vs.85.7±3.8,diagnosis and differential diagnosis score:92.0±2.4 vs.87.9±3.7,clinical decision-making score:90.3±3.1 vs.85.5±3.9,all P<0.05),satisfaction with teaching methods,stimulating learning interest,firmly mastering knowledge,enhancing problem-solving ability,improving learning enthusiasm,improving clinical thinking ability and enhancing team consciousness was also significantly higher than that of the control group[teaching methods:80.0%(24/30)vs.46.7%(14/30),stimulate learning interest:83.3%(25/30)vs.56.7%(17/30),firmly mastering knowledge:80.0%(24/30)vs.40.0%(12/30),enhance problem-solving ability:70.0%(21/30)vs.43.3%(13/30),improving learning enthusiasm:83.3%(25/30)vs.50.0%(15/30),improving clinical thinking ability:60.0%(18/30)vs.40.0%(12/30),enhancing team consciousness:73.3%(22/30)vs.46.7%(14/30),all P<0.05].Conclusion The application of PDCA-style training of severe ultrasound and hemodynamics can help internal medicine residents master the basic theory and skills of severe diseases faster and better in the rotation of critical medicine departments,which is more conducive to improving the clinical decision-making ability of internal medicine residents.