The late Greco-Roman and Byzantine contribution to the evolution of laboratory examinations of bodily excrement. Part 1: Urine, sperm, menses and stools

Laboratory medicine and medical oncology: the tale of two Cinderellas

Cancer represents a leading cause of death in the developed countries. The past 50 years have witnessed major progress in both laboratory medicine and clinical oncology that has translated into improved prognosis of cancer patients. From the humble beginnings as unrelated specialties, major advances in the understanding of molecular bases of cancer progression led to increased interactions between laboratory medicine and clinical (mostly medical) oncology. Laboratory medicine is now an integral part of the management of cancer patients. The many aspects of the role of laboratory medicine in clinical oncology include the determination of biomarkers that are used in establishing the diagnosis, predicting response to therapy or prognosis, study of the host response to tumor growth, detection of treatment toxicity and determining the concentrations of anticancer drugs.

Thirty-six Hippocratic aphorisms of nephrologic interest

In this article, we discuss the nephrologic content within Hippocrates' Aphorisms. Although similar attempts have taken place ever since antiquity, we believe that in each era new insights may be gained by examining the aphorisms through the prism of current medical knowledge. Of the 400 aphorisms in the Hippocratic text, we discuss the 36 that we consider to be most relevant to nephrology. We conclude that these aphorisms support the concept of Hippocrates as the "Father of Clinical Nephrology."

Uroscopy by Hippocrates and Theophilus: prognosis versus diagnosis

PURPOSE

In antiquity the visual examination of urine (uroscopy) is well documented. Uroscopy gradually evolved from a prognostic indicator to a diagnostic tool. Comparison of the uses of uroscopy by Hippocrates (400 BC) and Theophilus (700 AD) illustrates this transformation.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We reviewed medical and historical literature as well as the translated works of Hippocrates.

RESULTS

Although Hippocrates was one of the first physicians to use urine to interpret human body functioning, urine was mainly used as a means for prognosis and prediction of outcomes of illness. In his text De Urinis Theophilus introduced an innovative doctrine and used uroscopy for diagnosis of illnesses. In this respect uroscopy became a paradigm for later diagnostic strategies and is considered an important milestone in the history of clinical diagnosis.

CONCLUSIONS

Hippocrates' writings displayed uroscopy used in examination of illness. However, he considered it in the context for accurate prognoses. Theophilus treated uroscopy in a sophisticated objective manner and attempted to use uroscopy in an orderly, systemic method to accurately diagnose illness. It was through these approaches to uroscopy that Theophilus became one of the physicians who contributed to the birth of medieval medical studies.

The late Greco-Roman and Byzantine contribution towards the evolution of laboratory examinations of bodily excrement. Part 2: sputum, vomit, blood, sweat, autopsies

Although the establishment of medical laboratory institutions was a continuous process that matured only after the 16th century, several attempts had already been made to attain a diagnosis by investigating bodily excrement. In the first part of our work, published in a previous issue of this journal, we presented data on urine, sperm, menses and stools. In this paper we present data on sputum, vomit, blood, sweat, and autopsies, thus completing the list of human materials used for laboratory examinations. All the data used are extracted from codices of Late Antiquity and Byzantium and translated by us. We did not study medical texts from the other great ancestors of Western medicine, namely Arabic and Jewish writings. From the texts cited, it is apparent that the lack of technological means was no obstacle for the doctor to create an "examinational" mind, i.e., to try to correlate the macroscopic findings in the excrement with the pathophysiological mechanism that induced them, solely with the use of the senses. This not only applies to the examination of urine, as is commonly assumed, but also to many other excrements of the upper and lower orifices of the body, as well as the human body as a whole.