tbuckley/cabot-search huggingface dataset:
The Application of Carbonic Acid Gas to the Interior of the Bladder
Authors: T. Skinner
Journal: BMJ (1858)

more thirst; the tongue whiter; the urine of low specific gravity (1008), and highly acid.July 4th.She had taken wine freely, and appeared alto- gether better.The throat was cleaner; her spirits were good, she swallowed with less pain, and enjoyed her food.Since the above entry was made, the patient has rapidly pro- gressed towards a perfect cure; and, the throat being quite clean, no further notes of the case have been preserved. REMARKS. Allusion was before
Resuscitation and Other Uses of Artificial Respiration
Authors: James L. Whittenberger
Journal: New England Journal of Medicine (1954)

IN 1865, Sansom1 summarized the state of the art of resuscitation as follows: "All existing facts, and all the latest experiments, point to the conclusions that there is only one perfect stimulus to the failing heart, the stimulus of a sufficiently aerated blood, and that the only mode of producing it is the excitation of respiration." Thus, resuscitation has long been equated with artificial respiration, though it may deserve a larger definition. Since most recent advances in this field have been in methods of artificial respiration this aspect of resuscitation will be considered particularly. Other important measures have been reviewed . . .
Incorrect Statements.
Journal: JAMA (1992)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
MEDICAL DEMOBILIZATION
Authors: H. Thursfield
Journal: BMJ (1919)

<h3>Objective</h3> To measure changes in socioeconomic inequality in the distribution of family physicians (general practitioners (GPs)) relative to need in England from 2004/2005 to 2013/2014. <h3>Design</h3> Whole-population small area longitudinal data linkage study. <h3>Setting</h3> England from 2004/2005 to 2013/2014. <h3>Participants</h3> 32 482 lower layer super output areas (neighbourhoods of 1500 people on average). <h3>Main outcome measures</h3> Slope index of inequality (SII) between the most and least deprived small areas in annual full-time equivalent GPs (FTE GPs) per 100 000 need adjusted population. <h3>Results</h3> In 2004/2005, inequality in primary care supply as measured by the SII in FTE GPs was 4.2 (95% CI 3.1 to 5.3) GPs per 100 000. By 2013/2014, this SII had fallen to −0.7 (95% CI −2.5 to 1.1) GPs per 100 000. The number of FTE GPs per 100 000 serving the most deprived fifth of small areas increased over this period from 54.0 to 60.5, while increasing from 57.2 to 59.9 in the least deprived fifth, so that by the end of the study period there were more GPs per 100 000 need adjusted population in the most deprived areas than in the least deprived. The increase in GP supply in the most deprived fifth of neighbourhoods was larger in areas that received targeted investment for establishing new practices under the ‘Equitable Access to Primary Medical Care’. <h3>Conclusions</h3> There was a substantial reduction in socioeconomic inequality in family physician supply associated with national policy. This policy may not have completely eliminated socioeconomic inequality in family physician supply since existing need adjustment formulae do not fully capture the additional burden of multimorbidity in deprived neighbourhoods. The small area approach introduced in this study can be used routinely to monitor socioeconomic inequality of access to primary care and to indicate workforce shortages in particular neighbourhoods. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
Therapeutics
Journal: JAMA (1907)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
Standards for patient monitoring during anesthesia at Harvard Medical School
Authors: J. H. Eichhorn
Journal: JAMA (1986)

As part of a major patient safety/risk management effort, the Department of Anaesthesia of Harvard Medical School, Boston, has devised specific, detailed, mandatory standards for minimal patient monitoring during anesthesia at its nine component teaching hospitals. Such standards have not previously existed, and resistance to the concept was anticipated but not seen. The standards are technically achievable in all settings and affordable in terms of effort and cost. Early detection of untoward trends or events during anesthesia will result in prevention or mitigation of patient injury; this, in turn, may also help counter the explosive increases in anesthesia-related malpractice actions, settlements, judgments, and insurance premiums. The committee process used is applicable to the promulgation of standards of practice for all medical specialties and any organized group of medical practitioners. (<i>JAMA</i>1986;256:1017-1020)
Pharmacokinetics and efficacy of intravenous vascular endothelial growth factor (rhVEGF) in porcine hibernating myocardium Shankha S. Biswas, Patrick W. Domkowski, Luis H. Diodato, Anne M. Pippen, Kevin P. Landolfo, Brian H. Annex. Duke University Medical Center, Durham, NC
Journal: Journal of the American College of Cardiology (2001)
Reflected Ultrasound in Assessment of Mitral Valve Disease
Journal: JAMA (1963)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
From the Food and Drug Administration
Authors: S. L. Nightingale
Journal: JAMA (1989)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
PM 2.5 and Mortality in Long-Term Prospective Cohort Studies: Cause-Effect or Statistical Associations?
Authors: John F. Gamble
Journal: Environmental Health Perspectives (1998)

Concentrations of ambient PM2.5 (particulate matter c2.5 pm in aerodynamic diameter) were associated with increased mortality in two prospective cohort studies.In this paper, 1 assess whether the weight of the evidence supports a causal association.I assumed the study population in each city to have the same exposure; therefore, these are ecologic studies because exposure is at the group level.Health outcome and confounding data arc at the individual level.Ambient PM concentrations are inadequate surrogates for personal exposue because they are at the group lev and comprise only a small proportion of personal xposre, they change over time, and they con- stitute only a small proportion of a lif span.The strength ofassociation and eposure-response relationships cannot be deter ed because the ecologic group-level risk of PM2.5 are overesti- mated 150-to 300-fold based on an analogy with individual-levd exposure to inhaled cigarette smoke.Risk estimates may also be high because of confounding from factors such as physical activity and lung function.The evidence is not coherent because the stroger asocations are expected to be with morbidity, but instead are with mortality.For exmple, PM,, wa ted with mortality but not with measurable reductions in lung function.Biological plausibility is lacking because lifetime exposure of rats to combustion products at concentrations two to hee orders of tude higher than air poliution levels cause lung overloading but no consistent reduction in survival.Criteria for quantitative risk assessment are not met so the data are not use- fil for setting air quality standards.The weight of evidence suggt there is no substantive basis for concluding that a cause-effect relationship exists between long-term ambient PM2.5 and increased mortality.
A Laboratory Text-book of Pathology for the use of Students and Practitioners of Medicine.
Journal: JAMA (1898)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
Medical Organization.
Journal: JAMA (1903)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
Wife Abuse
Authors: Jane A. Petro
Journal: JAMA (1978)

Wife abuse is receiving widespread attention in the lay press, but its discussion in the medical literature has been rare. Identifying a victim of wife abuse is complicated, since these women will seldom volunteer that information. There are no economic, educational, or class predictors of wife abuse. Suspicion of abuse should be aroused if there is (1) a substantial delay between time of injury and presentation for treatment, (2) evidence of repeated injuries to the face and neck, or (3) a previous history of abuse. Social agencies for the care and counseling of these victims exist and should be used. (<i>JAMA</i>240:240-241, 1978)
Withdrawn
Authors: Angela Fadahunsi, Debendra Pattanaik, Alexandria Keene, Phillip Lieberman, Thanai Pongdee, Jay Lieberman, Kathleen Grisanti, Margaret Redmond, Lisa Martorano, Tara Mccarthy, Rebecca Scherzer, Kasey Strothman, Julie Leonard
Journal: Journal of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (2018)
Healthy aging
Authors: K T Khaw
Journal: BMJ (1997)

Old age has always been with us.The ancient Egyptians and the author of the 12th chapter of Ecclesiastes were familiar with the common disabilities of later life.Survival into what we still regard as old age was not unusual in classical Greece (table).The average length of human life has increased over the centuries as living conditions have improved and childhood mortality has fallen; the maximum lifespan of our species is determined largely by our genes and will be the same as it ever was.Doctors and philosophers of antiquity commented on age associated illness.Hippocrates noted conditions common in later life, and Aristotle offered a theory of aging based on loss of heat.Two thousand years were to pass before anything better was written on the subject.Francis Bacon proposed a scientific programme of epidemiological investigations into the longevity of people living in different places and under different conditions. 1 He also noted that the pursuit of knowledge depended on "the fresh examination of particulars," advice that underlaid the systematic observation of nature that complemented the active experimentation advocated by his contemporary William Harvey.During the 18th and 19th centuries several physicians wrote specifically about the diseases of later life and their treatment.These included Cheyne 2 and Day 3 in Britain and Rush 4 in the United States.Charcot's lectures on the medicine of old age aroused scientific interest in the field and became available in English translation in 1881. 5 The word "geriatrics" was invented by Ignatz L Nascher, a Vienna-born immigrant to the United States in 1909. 6(It is not clear who is to blame for the barbarous miscoining of "gerontology"-the study of old men-for "geratology"-the study of old age.)Nascher's initiative provided a stimulus for social and biological research on aging, 7 but clinical geriatrics did not flourish in the United States.The American Geriatrics Society was founded in 1942, but as a thriving and influential medical specialty geriatric medicine was essentially a product of the British NHS. Old age in classical Greece
Morning Distort
Authors: Frederick L. Brancati
Journal: JAMA (1991)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
Polycomb Repressive Complex 2 Is a Barrier to KRAS-Driven Inflammation and Epithelial-Mesenchymal Transition in Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer
Authors: Michela Serresi, Gaetano Gargiulo, Natalie Proost, Bjorn Siteur, Matteo Cesaroni, Martijn Koppens, Huafeng Xie, Kate D. Sutherland, Danielle Hulsman, Elisabetta Citterio, Stuart Orkin, Anton Berns, Maarten van Lohuizen
Journal: Cancer Cell (2016)
Leads from the MMWR. Recommendations for prevention of HIV transmission in health-care settings
Journal: JAMA (1987)

Our website uses cookies to enhance your experience. By continuing to use our site, or clicking "Continue," you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy | Continue JAMA HomeNew OnlineCurrent IssueFor Authors Podcasts Clinical Reviews Editors' Summary Medical News Author Interviews More Publications JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry (1919-1959) JN Learning / CMESubscribeJobsInstitutions / LibrariansReprints & Permissions Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Accessibility Statement 2023 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved Search All JAMA JAMA Network Open JAMA Cardiology JAMA Dermatology JAMA Forum Archive JAMA Health Forum JAMA Internal Medicine JAMA Neurology JAMA Oncology JAMA Ophthalmology JAMA Otolaryngology–Head & Neck Surgery JAMA Pediatrics JAMA Psychiatry JAMA Surgery Archives of Neurology & Psychiatry Input Search Term Sign In Individual Sign In Sign inCreate an Account Access through your institution Sign In Purchase Options: Buy this article Rent this article Subscribe to the JAMA journal
A consolidated screening tool for supportive oncology needs and distress.
Authors: Amy Scheu, Lauren Allison Wiebe, Shelly S. Lo, Catherine Deamant, Betty Roggenkamp, Urjeet Patel, Pam Khosla, Patricia A. Robinson, Frank J. Penedo, James Gerhart, Teresa Lillis, William Dale, Ana Gordon, Rajul Kothari, Rosa Berardi, Julia Rachel Trosman, Christine B. Weldon
Journal: Journal of Clinical Oncology (2016)

72 Background: The IOM 2013 Report recommends that supportive oncology care start at cancer diagnosis; the Commission on Cancer (CoC) standard 3.2 requires distress screening and indicated action. Screening tools are not standardized across institutions and often address only a portion of patients’ supportive oncology needs. Methods: A collaborative of 100+ clinicians, funded by The Coleman Foundation, developed a patient-centric consolidated screening tool based on validated instruments (NCCN Distress Problem List, PHQ-4, PROMIS) and IOM and CoC. The screening tool was piloted at 6 practice improvement cancer centers in the Chicago area (3 academic, 2 safety-net, 1 public). Patients, providers assessing each patient’s screening results (assessors), and providers receiving referrals (referral providers) were surveyed after each use of the screening tool. Descriptive statistics were used to assess effectiveness of the tool. Results: Responders included 29 patients, 81 assessors and 26 referral providers (SW, chaplain, subspecialist). The majority of patients (22/29, 75%) completed the screening in &lt; 10 minutes without assistance and will complete at every visit. Most assessors (59/77, 76%) spent &lt; 5 minutes reviewing screening results. The majority of patients, assessors, and referral providers reported that the screening tool asked the “right questions”. Assessors reporting partial relevance of some screening questions for 34% (26/77) of patients, uncovered ≥ 1 relevant needs for 96% (25/26) of those patients (p = 0.002). Conclusions: Use of a consolidated supportive oncology screening tool across multiple institutions is feasible, discovered unmet patient needs, and was beneficial for assessors and providers. As the tool is adopted by collaborating institutions, variations in supportive oncology screening may decline, thus improving access to supportive oncology care with implications for national dissemination. [Table: see text]