To date, the definition that the off-label usage of drugs refers to the unapproved use of approved drugs, which covers unapproved indications, patient populations, doses, and/or routes of administration, has been in existence for many years. Currently, there is a limited frequency and prevalence of research on the off-label use of antineoplastic drugs, mainly due to incomplete definition and classification issues. It is time to embrace new categories for the off-label usage of anticancer drugs. This review provided an insight into an updated overview of the concept and categories of the off-label use of anticancer drugs, along with illustrating specific examples to establish the next studies about the extent of the off-label usage of anticancer drugs in the oncology setting. The scope of the off-label use of current anticancer drugs beyond the previous definitions not only includes off-label uses in terms of indications, patient populations, doses, and/or routes of administration but also off-label use in terms of medication course, combination, sequence of medication, clinical purpose, contraindications scenarios, etc. In addition, the definition of the off-label usage of anticancer drugs should be added to the condition at a given time, and it varies from approval authorities. We presented a new and relatively comprehensive classification, providing extensive analysis and illustrative examples of the off-label usage of antineoplastic drugs for the first time. Such a classification has the potential to promote practical adoption and enhance management strategies for the off-label use of antitumor drugs.

This paper describes the process used by the Consultative Committee for Mass and Related Quantities - Working Group on Hardness (CCM-WGH) of the International Committee of Weights and Measures (CIPM) to develop international definitions of the conventional Rockwell, Brinell, Vickers and Knoop hardness test methods, for use by the National Metrology Institutes (NMI) that standardize hardness measurement.

We have a reason to value the Uniform Determination of Death Act (UDDA). Since enactment, the UDDA has been of paramount importance to US citizens, families of comatose patients, and the health care professionals who care for them. The UDDA sets forth two standards for determining death and leaves to the medical community to elaborate criteria by which physicians can determine when those standards have been met. Neurologists and neurocritical care experts always have been center stage in this effort. Perfectly established, why change it? What ignited the recent review of the UDDA were lawsuits questioning medical (neurological) authority leading to the wording and accuracy of the UDDA being revisited. The major objections to the language of the UDDA by several groups led a committee appointed by the Uniform Law Commission to consider several substantial changes in the Act. After several years of discussion without reaching a consensus, the committee\'s chair suspended the effort. Upending the UDDA will lead to a legal crisis and confusion across the states. We present our main arguments against revising this statute and argue that the committee\'s failure to revise the UDDA should actually be seen as a necessary success.

暂无摘要。

In current clinical practice, qualitative or semi-quantitative measures are primarily used to report coronary artery disease on cardiac CT. With advancements in cardiac CT technology and automated post-processing tools, quantitative measures of coronary disease severity have become more broadly available. Quantitative coronary CT angiography has great potential value for clinical management of patients, but also for research. This document aims to provide definitions and standards for the performance and reporting of quantitative measures of coronary artery disease by cardiac CT.

Research on infants who have allegedly succumbed to sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) has been of variable quality over the years. Even now peer-reviewed papers are being published on cases termed \'SIDS\' without autopsies having been performed, despite this being a requirement of the three major definitions for over five decades. Clearly cases used in earlier research studies could not have complied with the requirements of as-yet unpublished definitions/guidelines. For this reason care must be taken in citing initial papers as their results may have been skewed by the presence of non-SIDS cases. This may have particular relevance for meta analyses. Reviewing the literature on substance P and its relationship to SIDS provides an excellent example of how diametrically opposed conclusions were reached at different time points. Early studies on SIDS, and studies that use cases that were classified before the standard NICHD and San Diego definitions, should, therefore, be approached with a degree of scepticism and not cited in contemporary papers or at meetings as they have the potential to confuse rather than clarify.

The Covid-19 pandemic has dramatically shown the level of interconnectedness of the human population, the direct relation between human health and the ecosystem, as well as the enormous ethical challenges required for a global response. Relatedly, society has been directly confronted by issues of \'Global health,\' both in terms of awareness of health conditions and health systems resiliency all around the world, as well as in terms of governance of the worldwide response and its implications at national and local levels. While Global health is often used as a cosmetic label for neocolonial approaches, it is really an interdisciplinary approach consisting of the interaction between globalization and the determinants of health. Thus, it involves the ecosystem and its transformation and implies a systemic \'One Health\' decolonized approach in the definition of its strategies. The Covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the inequities and the limits of the current hegemonic Global health system governance; calling for ethics to provide a renewed, comprehensive, inclusive, and decolonized conceptualization of Global health.

UNASSIGNED: Anastomotic leaks (ALs) are a significant and feared postoperative complication, with incidence of up to 30% despite advances in surgical techniques. With implications such as additional interventions, prolonged hospital stays, and hospital readmission, ALs have important impacts at the level of individual patients and healthcare providers, as well as healthcare systems as a whole. Challenges in developing unified definitions and grading systems for leaks have proved problematic, despite acknowledgement that colorectal AL is a critical issue in intestinal surgery with serious consequences. The aim of this study was to construct a narrative review of literature surrounding definitions and grading systems for ALs, and consequences of this postoperative complication.
UNASSIGNED: A literature review was conducted by examining databases including PubMed, Web of Science, OVID Embase, Google Scholar, and Cochrane library databases. Searches were performed with the following keywords: anastomosis, anastomotic leak, colorectal, surgery, grading system, complications, risk factors, and consequences. Publications that were retrieved underwent further assessment to ensure other relevant publications were identified and included.
UNASSIGNED: A universally accepted definition and grading system for ALs continues to be lacking, leading to variability in reported incidence in the literature. Additional factors add to variability in estimates, including differences in the anastomotic site and institutional/individual differences in operative technique. Various groups have worked to publish guidelines for defining and grading AL, with the International Study Group of Rectal Cancer (ISGRC/ISREC) definition the current most recommended universal definition for colorectal AL. The burden of AL on patients, healthcare providers, and hospitals is well documented in evidence from leak consequences, such as increased morbidity and mortality, higher reoperation rates, and increased readmission rates, among others.
UNASSIGNED: Colorectal AL remains a significant challenge in intestinal surgery, despite medical advancements. Understanding the progress made in defining and grading leaks, as well as the range of negative outcomes that arise from AL, is crucial in improving patient care, reduce surgical mortality, and drive further advancements in earlier detection and treatment of AL.

Infections remain a significant concern in patients receiving mechanical circulatory support (MCS), encompassing both durable and acute devices. This consensus manuscript provides updated definitions for infections associated with durable MCS devices and new definitions for infections in acute MCS, integrating a comprehensive review of existing literature and collaborative discussions among multidisciplinary specialists. By establishing consensus definitions, we seek to enhance clinical care, facilitate consistent reporting in research studies, and ultimately improve outcomes for patients receiving MCS.

BACKGROUND: Chronic lung disease of prematurity (CLD) is the most prevalent complication of preterm birth and indicates an increased likelihood of long-term pulmonary complications. The accurate diagnosis of this condition is critical for long-term health management. Numerous definitions define CLD with different clinical parameters and radiology findings, making diagnosis of the disease ambiguous and potentially inaccurate.
METHODS: 95 patients were identified for this study, as determined by the diagnosis or confirmation of CLD in the impression of the radiologist\'s report on chest x-ray. Pulmonary function and complications were recorded at multiple benchmark timeframes within each patient\'s first few months of life and used for determining eligibility under each definition.
RESULTS: Each clinical definition of CLD had a high sensitivity for patients identified to have CLD by radiologists, correctly fitting over 90% of patients. Most patients included required invasive mechanical ventilation or positive pressure ventilation at 36 weeks postmenstrual age, indicating patients with radiographically confirmed CLD tended to have more severe disease. Radiologists tended to diagnose CLD before 36 weeks postmenstrual age, a timepoint used by multiple standard clinical definitions, with cases called earlier fitting under a larger percentage of definitions than those called later.
CONCLUSIONS: Radiologists tend to diagnose CLD in young patients with severe respiratory compromise, and can accurately diagnose the condition before developmental milestones for clinical definitions are met.