Compositionality of the Constituent Characters in Chinese Two-Character-Word Recognition by Adult Readers of High and Low Chinese Proficiency.

In Chinese, the graphic units are Chinese characters, most of which are compound characters. Since a compound character can be different from another one in being regarded as composed of components (compositionality), readers might have developed a compositionality awareness of the constituent characters in two-character word (2C-word) recognition. Two experiments were conducted in a lexical decision task on the same set of 2C-words, the first constituent characters of which were manipulated in compositionality. Given that a Chinese character is more difficult to recognize when it is presented upside-down than when it is presented in an upright orientation and that it is inevitable to perceive the constituent characters in 2C-word recognition, we manipulated the first constituent characters' presentation orientation to increase the task difficulty. The two constituent characters of a 2C-word target were displayed simultaneously in a trial in Experiment 1 but were shown sequentially in Experiment 2. Participants were two cohorts of adult Chinese native speakers (CNS1s and CNS2s). CNS1s had a significantly lower level of reading proficiency than CNS2s. The influence of orientation was observed in both CNS1s and CNS2s' performance across the two experiments, but only CNS2s' reaction times seemed to have indicated the effect of compositionality in Experiment 2. Skilled readers are more likely than less skilled readers to be conscious of compositionality of the first constituent characters, which are presented separately from the second ones, in 2C-word recognition.

Diagnostic value of neuronal pentraxin II methylation in patients with pancreatic cancer: Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Pancreatic cancer (PC) is a devasting disease of which mortality almost parallels its incidence. PC tissue may express aberrantly methylated neuronal pentraxin II (NPTX2), but it is unclear what the consequences of this are. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed, Web of Science, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), from inception to July 15, 2020, to identify if the detection of methylated NPTX2 have sufficient sensitivity and specificity to identify PC from other benign pancreatic diseases. RESULTS: Majority of the studies obtained samples from pancreatic juice by endoscopy or surgery and composed of population with chronic pancreatitis, benign cystic lesion, intraductal papillary mucinous neoplasm, and healthy controls. Our results demonstrated that the diagnostic value of methylated NPTX2 is of widely various sensitivity and specificity and it shown higher specificity in differentiate PC from benign diseases. The lab method of quantitative real-time methylation-specific PCR (QMSP) has higher specificity than real-time methylation-specific PCR (MSP) in detecting the indicator. CONCLUSIONS: NPTX2 methylation could serve as a promising molecular biomarker for pancreatic cancer diagnosis, for its high diagnostic value in differentiating pancreatic cancer from benign pancreatic disease with the lab method. The variable sensitivity of methylated NPTX2 was multifactorial, and it must be promoted before applied as screening test in clinical practice. Furthermore, experiments on methylated NPTX2 were needed to expanded for lower the heterogeneity.

[The value of flow cytometry for the differential diagnosis between refractory cytopenia with multiple dysplasia and aplastic anemia].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the value of flow cytometry (FCM) for the differential diagnosis between myelodysplasia (MDS) subtype refractory cytopenia with multiple dysplasia (RCMD) and aplastic anemia (AA). METHODS: The flow cytometric data of bone marrow samples from 168 cases of RCMD and 77 cases of AA were analyzed retrospectively in blind, and its results were compared with gold standard to evaluate its diagnosis values. RESULTS: The specificity of abnormal of single immunophenotype in the surface of granulocytes and myeloblasts was high (range 75.3%-100%), but the sensitivity was very low (range 5.4%-50%). In parallel tests, the sensitivity and specificity of the combination of CD34+ cells≥1%, myeloblasts≥3%, abnormal expression of CD117 in granulocytes and loss of CD13 in myeloblasts or increased intensity of CD33 in granulocytes were higher than other combinations. The sensitivity and specificity of above combination were more than 62% and 92%, respectively. In the scoring method, different score was given to 8 markers according to different diagnostic value, which were CD34+ cells≥1%, myeloblasts≥3%, abnormal expression of CD117 in granulocytes, loss of CD13 in myeloblasts, increased intensity of CD33 in granulocytes, loss of CD13 in granulocytes, loss of CD10 in granulocytes, and decreased SSC in granulocytes. The sensitivity and specificity were both high if we defined that the total score≥1.5 was RCMD and the score<1.5 was AA. CONCLUSIONS: The value of abnormal of single immunophenotype for differential diagnosis between RCMD and AA is low. Parallel tests can increase the diagnostic sensitivity obviously and not decrease the specificity. CD34+ cells≥1%, myeloblasts≥3% and abnormal expression of CD117 in granulocytes were the most important markers. The scoring method is precise to distinguish RCMD from AA.