11 research outputs found

    Single Dose Gadolinium Contrast for 3 T Late Gadolinium Enhancement MRI -Intra-individual Comparison with Conventional Double Dose at 1.5 T MRI-

    Get PDF
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ (์„์‚ฌ)-- ์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› : ์˜ํ•™๊ณผ, 2015. 2. ์ดํ™œ.Purpose: 3 T late gadolinium enhancement (LGE) imaging is expected to provide comparable image quality to 1.5 T even with reduction of gadolinium contrast, thanks to superior signal to noise ratio and longer T1 relaxation time of normal myocardium. This prospective study was designed to perform intra-individual comparison of 3 T MR with use of 0.1 mmol/kg of gadoterate meglumine to 1.5 T MR with use of 0.2 mmol/kg of the same gadolinium contrast for the assessment of myocardial infarction. Materials and Methods: In this prospective study, a total of ten patients (M:F = 8:2mean age, 62.5 ยฑ 11.8 years) diagnosed as old myocardial infarction were examined at 3 T MR with single dose within two weeks after 1.5 T conventional double dose MR. A single representative short-axis image was acquired at three-time point temporal scans (10 minute, 15 minute and 20 minute) after administration of gadolinium agent (Uniray, gadoterate meglumine, Dongkook Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd). Two contrast to noise ratios (CNRs) between infarcted and normal myocardium and between infarcted and left ventricular (LV) cavity were calculated and compared intra-individually at each temporal scan. Two independent readers assessed infarct size semiautomatically by using a threshold of 6 standard deviations above the mean signal intensity of the remote myocardium. The interobserver reproducibility was also evaluated using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Results: Despite the usage of single dose of gadolinium, the mean values of infarcted myocardium tended to be higher at 3 T MR than 1.5 T MR with double dose at each time scan. 3 T LGE images with the single dose of gadolinium showed no significant difference in CNR between infarcted and normal myocardium at each time scan (all, p > 0.05). The CNR between infarcted myocardium and LV cavity was significantly better at 10 minute scan, compared to that of 1.5 T double dose (12.4 ยฑ 8.2 vs. 7.6 ยฑ 4.5, p = 0.049) but there were no differences at 15 and 20 minute scan. The measurement of relative infarct size was not significantly different between 1.5 T and 3 T MR by both observers 1 and 2 (all, p > 0.05). Interobserver reproducibility was excellent at 3 T single-dose MR (ICC range: 0.962-0.968) and good or excellent at 1.5 T double-dose MR (ICC range: 0.769-0.866). Conclusions: LGE imaging at 3 T with single-dose contrast is as effective as 1.5 T conventional double-dose MR for the delineation of infarcted myocardium from non-infarcted myocardium and is superior for detection of infarcted myocardium from blood cavity at 10 minute scan. Therefore, 3 T LGE imaging using a single dose of gadolinium is expected to not only reduce risk of nephrogenic systemic fibrosis but also help to delineate subendocardial infarctionIntroduction 1 Materials and Methods 4 Results 8 Discussion 24 Conclusion 29 Acknowledgements 30 References 31 Abstract in Korean 38Maste

    Long-term benefits of positive emotions on psyhological, physical and relational well-being

    No full text
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ (์„์‚ฌ)-- ์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› : ์‹ฌ๋ฆฌํ•™๊ณผ, 2011.8. ์ตœ์ธ์ฒ .Maste

    ๊ณ ์ถ”์˜ ์ €์˜จ ์œ ๋„์„ฑ ์นผ๋ชจ๋‘˜๋ฆฐ cDNA ํด๋ก ์˜ ํŠน์„ฑ ๋ถ„์„

    No full text
    ํ•™์œ„๋…ผ๋ฌธ(์„์‚ฌ)--์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› :์ƒ๋ช…๊ณผํ•™๋ถ€,2004.Maste

    Characterization of transposon Tn1549 associated with the vanB2 gene cluster in enterococci isolated from Korea

    No full text
    Thesis (master`s)--์„œ์šธ๋Œ€ํ•™๊ต ๋Œ€ํ•™์› :์ˆ˜์˜ํ•™๊ณผ ์ˆ˜์˜๋ฏธ์ƒ๋ฌผํ•™ ์ „๊ณต,2003.Maste

    One-Person Household Womenโ€™s Problem Drinking in Early Adulthood : Associations with Alcohol Expectancy, Loneliness, Stress, and Depression.

    No full text
    ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ๋Š” ์šฐ๋ฆฌ๋‚˜๋ผ ์—ฌ์„ฑ๋“ค์˜ ์Œ์ฃผ๊ฐ€ ์ฆ๊ฐ€ํ•˜๋Š” ์ƒํ™ฉ์—์„œ ์„ฑ์ธ์ดˆ๊ธฐ 1์ธ๊ฐ€๊ตฌ ์—ฌ์„ฑ์˜ ํ˜ผ์ˆ ์„ ํฌํ•จํ•œ ๋ฌธ์ œ์Œ์ฃผ ์‹คํƒœ๋ฅผ ํŒŒ์•…ํ•˜๊ณ , ์„ฑ์ธ์ดˆ๊ธฐ 1์ธ๊ฐ€๊ตฌ ์—ฌ์„ฑ์˜ ์ •์‹ ๊ฑด๊ฐ•์š”์†Œ ๋ฐ ์Œ์ฃผ๊ธฐ๋Œ€์™€ ๋ฌธ์ œ์Œ์ฃผ๊ฐ„์˜ ๊ด€๊ณ„๋ฅผ ํ†ตํ•ฉ์ ์œผ๋กœ ํ™•์ธํ•˜๊ณ ์ž ์‹œ๋„๋œ ์„œ์ˆ ์  ์กฐ์‚ฌ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์ด๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์˜ ๊ฐœ๋…์  ๊ธฐํ‹€์€ Bandura (1986)์˜ ์‚ฌํšŒ์ธ์ง€์ด๋ก (social cognitive theory)์„ ๊ธฐ๋ฐ˜์œผ๋กœ ํ•˜์˜€์œผ๋ฉฐ, ์„ฑ์ธ์ดˆ๊ธฐ 1์ธ๊ฐ€๊ตฌ ์—ฌ์„ฑ์˜ ์ธ๊ตฌ์‚ฌํšŒํ•™์  ํŠน์„ฑ, ์ผ๋ฐ˜ ๋ฐ ์ •์‹ ๊ฑด๊ฐ•๊ด€๋ จ ํŠน์„ฑ, ์Œ์ฃผ๊ด€๋ จ ํŠน์„ฑ์„ ์กฐ์‚ฌํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ํŠนํžˆ ์ •์‹ ๊ด€๋ จ ์š”์ธ์ธ ์Œ์ฃผ๊ธฐ๋Œ€, ์™ธ๋กœ์›€, ์ŠคํŠธ๋ ˆ์Šค, ์šฐ์šธ๊ณผ ๋ฌธ์ œ์Œ์ฃผ ์ˆ˜์ค€์„ ์ธก์ •ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์ž๋ฃŒ ์ˆ˜์ง‘์€ 2020๋…„ 2์›” 24์ผ๋ถ€ํ„ฐ 4์›” 6์ผ๊นŒ์ง€ ๋งŒ 19์„ธ ์ด์ƒ์—์„œ 40์„ธ ๋ฏธ๋งŒ์˜ ์Œ์ฃผ๋ ฅ์ด ์žˆ๋Š” 1์ธ๊ฐ€๊ตฌ ์—ฌ์„ฑ์„ ๋Œ€์ƒ์œผ๋กœ ์˜จ๋ผ์ธ ์„ค๋ฌธ์„ ์‹œํ–‰ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ํšŒ์ˆ˜๋œ 450๋ช…์˜ ์ž๋ฃŒ ์ค‘ ์Œ์ฃผ๊ธฐ๋Œ€ ๋ฐ ์ฃผ์š”๋ณ€์ˆ˜์— ๋Œ€ํ•ด ๋ถˆ์ถฉ๋ถ„ํ•œ ์‘๋‹ต์„ ํ•œ 100๋ช…์˜ ์ž๋ฃŒ๋ฅผ ์ œ์™ธํ•˜๊ณ  ์ด 350๋ช…์˜ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ ์ž๋ฃŒ๋ฅผ ๋ถ„์„์— ์‚ฌ์šฉํ•˜์˜€์œผ๋ฉฐ, ์ˆ˜์ง‘๋œ ์ž๋ฃŒ๋Š” SPSS 25.0 ํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์„ ์ด์šฉํ•˜์—ฌ ์œ ์˜์ˆ˜์ค€ .05์—์„œ ๊ธฐ์ˆ ํ†ต๊ณ„, independent t-test, one-way ANOVA, binary logistic regression analysis๋กœ ๋ถ„์„ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์—ฐ๊ตฌ์˜ ์ฃผ์š” ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ๋Š” ๋‹ค์Œ๊ณผ ๊ฐ™๋‹ค. 1. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ ์ฐธ์—ฌ์ž 350๋ช…์˜ ๋ฌธ์ œ์Œ์ฃผ ํ‰๊ท  ์ ์ˆ˜๋Š” 11.73ยฑ9.32์ ์ด์—ˆ๊ณ , ๋ฌธ์ œ์Œ์ฃผ๊ตฐ์€ ์ „์ฒด ์ฐธ์—ฌ์ž์˜ 68.3%์ธ 239๋ช…์ด์—ˆ๋‹ค. ๋ฌธ์ œ์Œ์ฃผ๊ตฐ ๊ด€๋ จ ์š”์ธ์œผ๋กœ๋Š” ์ฐธ์—ฌ์ž๊ฐ€ ์‚ฌํšŒ๊ฒฝ์ œ์  ์ƒํƒœ โ€˜์ƒโ€™์ผ ๋•Œ(OR=2.84, 95% CI: 1.17~6.92, p = .021), ํ˜„์žฌ ํก์—ฐ์ž(OR=2.56, 95% CI: 1.15~5.73, p = .022)์ด๊ฑฐ๋‚˜ ๊ณผ๊ฑฐ ํก์—ฐ ๊ฒฝํ—˜์ด ์žˆ์„ ๋•Œ(OR=3.33, 95% CI: 1.14~9.69, p = .028), ํ˜ผ์ˆ  ๊ฒฝํ—˜์ด ์žˆ์„ ๋•Œ(OR=2.37, 95% CI: 1.19~4.73, p = .015), ๊ธ์ •์  ์Œ์ฃผ ๊ธฐ๋Œ€๊ฐ€ ์ฆ๊ฐ€ํ•  ๋•Œ(OR=1.02, 95% CI: 1.00~1.04, p = .031), ๋ถ€์ •์  ์Œ์ฃผ ๊ธฐ๋Œ€๊ฐ€ ์ฆ๊ฐ€ํ•  ๋•Œ(OR=1.04, 95% CI: 1.01~1.06, p < .001), ์šฐ์šธ ์ง‘๋‹จ์— ์†ํ•  ๋•Œ(OR=2.10, 95% CI: 1.11~4.00, p = .023) ๋ฌธ์ œ์Œ์ฃผ๊ตฐ์ด ๋  ํ™•๋ฅ ์ด ์ฆ๊ฐ€ํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒƒ์œผ๋กœ ํ™•์ธ๋˜์—ˆ๋‹ค. 2. ํ˜ผ์ˆ  ๊ฒฝํ—˜์ด ์žˆ๋Š” 291๋ช…์˜ ๋Œ€์ƒ์ž๋งŒ์„ ์„ ๋ณ„ํ•˜์—ฌ ํ˜ผ์ˆ  ์‹œ ๋ฌธ์ œ์Œ์ฃผ๊ตฐ ๊ด€๋ จ ์š”์ธ์„ ํŒŒ์•…ํ•œ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ ์‚ฌํšŒ๊ฒฝ์ œ์  ์ƒํƒœ๊ฐ€ '์ƒ'์ผ ๋•Œ(OR=4.21, 95% CI: 1.28~13.87, p = .018), ํ˜„์žฌ ํก์—ฐ์ž์ด๊ฑฐ๋‚˜(OR=3.90, 95% CI: 1.57~9.66, p = .003), ๊ณผ๊ฑฐ ํก์—ฐ ๊ฒฝํ—˜์ด ์žˆ๋Š” ์ž์ผ ๋•Œ(OR=4.67, 95% CI: 1.50~14.55, p = .008), ๋ถ€์ •์  ์Œ์ฃผ ๊ธฐ๋Œ€๊ฐ€ ์ฆ๊ฐ€ํ•  ๋•Œ(OR=1.04, 95% CI: 1.02~1.07, p = .001), ์šฐ์šธ ์ง‘๋‹จ์— ์†ํ•  ๋•Œ(OR=2.27, 95% CI: 1.09~4.74, p = .028) ๋ฌธ์ œ์Œ์ฃผ๊ตฐ์ด ๋  ํ™•๋ฅ ์ด ์ฆ๊ฐ€ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ์Œ์ฃผ๊ด€๋ จ ์š”์ธ ์ค‘์—์„œ๋„ ์Œ์ฃผ ์‹œ ์ฃผ๋กœ ํ˜ผ์ˆ ์„ ํ•˜๋Š” ๊ฒฝ์šฐ(OR=0.40, 95% CI: 0.19~0.87, p = .021), 1ํšŒ ์Œ์ฃผ๋Ÿ‰์ด 3์ž” ๋ฏธ๋งŒ์— ๋น„ํ•ด 3~6์ž” ์Œ์ฃผํ•  ๊ฒฝ์šฐ(OR=7.11, 95% CI: 2.35~21.54, p = .001), ์ฃผ๋‹น 1ํšŒ ๋ฏธ๋งŒ์— ๋น„ํ•ด 1~2ํšŒ ์Œ์ฃผํ•  ๊ฒฝ์šฐ(OR=4.93, 95% CI: 1.92~12.64, p = .001), ์ตœ๊ทผ 6๊ฐœ์›”๊ฐ„ ํ˜ผ์ˆ ๋Ÿ‰์ด ์ฆ๊ฐ€ํ•œ ๊ฒฝ์šฐ(OR=3.03, 95% CI: 1.05~8.77, p = .040) ๋ฌธ์ œ์Œ์ฃผ๊ตฐ์ด ๋  ํ™•๋ฅ ์ด ์ฆ๊ฐ€ํ•˜์˜€๋‹ค. ๋ณธ ์—ฐ๊ตฌ ๊ฒฐ๊ณผ์—์„œ ํ™•์ธ๋œ ์„ฑ์ธ์ดˆ๊ธฐ 1์ธ๊ฐ€๊ตฌ ์—ฌ์„ฑ์˜ ๋ฌธ์ œ์Œ์ฃผ ์‹คํƒœ์™€ ์ •์‹ ๊ฑด๊ฐ• ์ˆ˜์ค€, ๋ฌธ์ œ์Œ์ฃผ๊ตฐ๊ณผ ๊ด€๋ จ๋œ ์š”์ธ์„ ๋ฐ”ํƒ•์œผ๋กœ ๋Œ€์ƒ์ž์˜ ํ™˜๊ฒฝ์  ์š”์†Œ, ์ •์‹ ๊ฑด๊ฐ•์  ์š”์†Œ, ์Œ์ฃผ ์ƒํ™ฉ์„ ํ†ตํ•ฉ์ ์œผ๋กœ ๊ณ ๋ คํ•œ ์˜ˆ๋ฐฉ์  ๋ฌธ์ œ์Œ์ฃผ ์ค‘์žฌ์•ˆ์˜ ๊ฐœ๋ฐœ์ด ํ•„์š”ํ•˜๋‹ค. ํŠนํžˆ ์ง€์—ญ์‚ฌํšŒ์—์„œ โ€˜ํ˜ผ์ˆ โ€™์„ ๋น„๋กฏํ•œ 1์ธ๊ฐ€๊ตฌ์˜ ํŠน์„ฑ์„ ๊ณ ๋ คํ•œ ํ”„๋กœ๊ทธ๋žจ์„ ํšจ๊ณผ์ ์œผ๋กœ ์ œ๊ณตํ•˜๊ธฐ ์œ„ํ•œ ์ •์‹ ๊ฑด๊ฐ• ๊ฐ„ํ˜ธ์‚ฌ์˜ ์ „๋žต ์ˆ˜๋ฆฝ์ด ํ•„์š”ํ•˜๋‹ค. The aims of this study were to identify the level of one-person household womenโ€™s drinking problem in early adulthood and examine the relationships of mental health factors, alcohol expectancy with problem drinking. The conceptual framework is based on Banduraโ€™s social cognitive theory (1986). This study examined the general characteristics including the sociodemographic characteristics, health-related characteristics, drinking-related characteristics and alcohol expectancy, loneliness (Korean version of revised UCLA Loneliness Scale, RULS-K), stress (Perceived Stress Scale, PSS), depression (Korean version of Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale-Revised, K-CESD-R), and problem drinking level (Korean version of Alcohol Use Disorder Identification Test, AUDIT-K). The data were collected through an online survey of one-person women aged 19 to under 40 from February 24 to April 6, 2020. Total 450 data were collected and 350 data, were analyzed after excluding 100 incomplete responses. Descriptive statistics, independent t-test, one-way ANOVA, binary logistic regression were conducted using SPSS 25.0 program. The main findings of the study are as follows: 1. The average score of problem drinking on the AUDIT-K was 11.73ยฑ9.32, and the problem drinking group was 239 participants (68.3%) of the total 350 participants. The regression model shows that socioeconomic status โ€˜highโ€™ (OR=2.84, 95% CI: 1.17~6.92, p = .021), current smoker (OR=2.56, 95% CI: 1.15~5.73, p = .022), previous smoker (OR=3.33, 95% CI: 1.14~9.69, p = .028), past experience of solitary drinking (OR=2.37, 95% CI: 1.19~4.73, p = .015), positive alcohol expectancy (OR=1.02, 95% CI: 1.00~1.04, p = .031), negative alcohol expectancy (OR=1.04, 95% CI: 1.01~1.06, p < .001), and depressed group (OR=2.10, 95% CI: 1.11~4.00, p = .023) are all positively associated with the problem drinking group. 2. Additional a binary regression analysis was conducted by selecting 291 participants who had experience of solitary drinking. As a result, the socioeconomic status 'high' (OR=4.21, 95% CI: 1.28~13.87, p = .018), current smokers (OR=3.90, 95% CI: 1.57~9.66, p = .003), previous smokers (OR=4.67, 95% CI: 1.50~14.55, p = .008), negative alcohol expectancy (OR=1.04, 95% CI: 1.02~1.07, p = .001), and the depression group (OR=2.27, 95% CI: 1.09~4.74, p = .028) were positively related to the problem drinking group. Our study findings show the significance of mental health factors related to problem drinking in one-person household young women. Based on the results of this study, we should develop interventions to prevent problem drinking by comprehensively considering environmental factors, mental health factors and drinking context of one-person household women in early adulthood.open์„
    corecore