Neurology used in a sentence

Neurology in a sentence as a noun

Most neurology reports are case reports of 1 patient, the most notable of all of course being Phineas Gauge.

I've spent about four years as a medical tech working with epilepsy in a neurology lab. Sorry, but this just gets up my nose.

Myself personally, I worked as a neurology tech for four years, and the doctors I worked with were a broad mix. Some of them were the sweetest people you could hope to meet.

And some rather specialized stuff like neurology/neuroscience which I didn't really expect to be on the list anyways. Good effort thought.

For instance suppose that one step is to refer the patient to neurology. What if you're in a country hospital and there is a neurologist on call, you can't simply call that department.

Or back when I was in neurology, there was EEG hardware for Win and Lin, but no mac. I mean, you're responding to "Use lenovo as a reference model" with "looking at a bunch of other suppliers from a niche industry, it doesn't match up".

To understand what causes these disorders, im going to have to summerize basic neurology fundamentals. The brain produces a chemical called dopamine that just about runs the entire show upstairs.

It is nothing like relativity and neurology has no analog in QM. I am not sure if it's psychology/neurology or relativity/QM you lack a firm grasp of but it appears to be at least one or the other.

'Developmentally delayed' has been the 'next official term' at least since I started working in neurology in 2000. I have never, ever, ever seen it used as an epithet, not once, not in all the internet flamewars I've seen.

From my time in paediatric neurology a decade ago, '********' has been replaced with 'developmentally delayed'. I have yet to see that enter into use as a pejorative, and frankly there are too many syllables for it to do so.

As someone with a strong interest in everything neurology/psychology/intelligence/learning/teaching/etc, this is the most accurate description of what is going on." Incompetence" isn't toxic, viewpoint and attitude are.

I had major problems with that story as well - I used to work as a medical tech in neurology, and half our patient load were kids. Either the story is made up, she's misreading sympathetic commiseration for astonishment, or the neuropsych is massively inexperienced.

My prediction is that advances in neurology in the next 50 years will make our current understanding of mental health look like homeopathy. It is very difficult today to accurately diagnose people with mental diseases like ADD or depression when we don't understand how the brain works on that level of detail.

The answer to "Why time appears to speed up with age" is to be found in the messy details of neurology, genetics and evolution, not in an aesthetically pleasing mathematical formula.

We may disagree with his ideas now, and possibly his theories are out of date, but the magnitude of his contribution to linguistics, and by extension, neurology, psychology, and computer science, puts him in the very highest rank of scientists.

Am considering going back to university at some point however, as I wouldn't mind doing either nanotechnology or neurology and most of the equipment involved in those is out of my current price range. To be honest though, most of my heroes are dead philosophers of one form or another, so I am pretty happy with a roof, food, clean clothes, regular showers, access to the internet and a large pile of books.

The situation he describes revolves is centered around new people - kid's, whose neurology is shaped by technology as they grow up. Kids are handed a smart phone at 12, before they have a full adults' ability to choose or at a point when they would choose differently than the adult they will become. That's fine assuming they emerge intact from the experience. The question is whether there is a point where neurology is going to "lose the race" to one or another stimulation system's ability to "addict" people.

Let me explain the difference: all of our research had strict ethical guidelines backed by IRB approvals, the procedures were performed by trained biologists, and the outcome is fundamental neurology research that will be published in Science or Nature. Meanwhile, these cockroach experiments are being performed w/o oversight, by "citizen scientists", with no apparent outcome other than novelty and staving off boredom.

In the conclusion the scientists draw parallels between this finding and the unpredictability of other genes that work on the same structures, with the intent of highlighting how little we understand about the relation between genetics and neurology. Second, the scientists identified a grand total of four individuals out of a population of over 1000 that was already relatively at-risk.

I'm generally very skeptical of authors or papers that make claims about "quantum processes" and consciousness because they are generally written by people who know very little about neurology and even less about quantum physics. Ask them about quantum entanglement, and you'll generally get a misguided interpretation based on a decades old mistake in reasoning that has long since been corrected [1][2].

It's Poland so neurology ward was overcrowded and begged for renovation and radiotherapy mask was initially too tight, but we don't care, she was given two years and counting of full quality life witout any unnecessary burden on her, us and our families.

Quote Examples using Neurology

It is very unlikely that you would hear anyone that worked in neurology flat-out refute any combination of symptoms. I used to work in a seizure clinic and heard of a guy that had a seizure when he saw orange circles. No other colour circle or other shape orange, just specifically orange circles. This was confirmed through EEG testing. Never heard of another case like it, but you get unique things like this reasonably often in neurology.

Anonymous