0000000000238531
AUTHOR
Terranova
Epidemiology, risk factors, and natural history of hepatocellular carcinoma
The incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma is increasing in many countries. The estimated number of new cases annually is over 500,000, and the yearly incidence comprises between 2.5 and 7% of patients with liver cirrhosis. The incidence varies between different geographic areas, being higher in developing areas; males are predominantly affected, with a 2:3 male/female ratio. The heterogeneous geographic distribution reflects the epidemiologic impact of the main etiologic factors and environmental risk, which are the hepatitis B (HBV) and hepatitis C (HCV) viruses. The percentage of cases of hepatocellular carcinoma attributable to HBV worldwide is 52.3% and is higher in Asia where the serop…
Tracce di ‘improbus intestabilisque’ nella Parafrasi di Teofilo e nei Basilici
The research is a part of a wider study on the improbitas and the so called intestabilitas in the Roman sources and focuses on analysis of a passage of the Theophilus’Paraphrase (2.10.6) and some σχόλια added to the Basilica [especially, Sch. 1 ad Bas. 39.1(Pb).6 e Sch. 3 ad Bas. 21.1(Pa).14] – texts that have not been taken into account (except for PT. 2.10.6 only) by the scholars who studied the implications associated with the improbus intestabilisque esse. The Author aims to verify the presence of traces of that institute in the aforementioned Byzantine sources, which may be useful for a more complete reconstruction of the historical evolution of the Roman formulaic improbus intestabili…
Due brani a confronto in tema di testamenti factio (cum testibus): D. 28.1.20.2 (Ulp. 1 ad Sab.) e I. 2.10.9
The research compares two texts of Justinian’s compilation: D. 28.1.20.2 (Ulp. 1 ad Sab.) and I. 2.10.9, that provide two different solutions to the problem if the father and the brother of an filius familias in potestate who makes a will de castrensi peculio can be considered testes idonei in his will. The author formulates questions on the reasons for this dissent under two different profiles: why, in the Institutiones, the Justinian’s compilers (probably, Theophilus) propose a determination, ictu oculi, opposite to that reported in the Digesta? What motivations justify the existence on the point of a probable dispute among the jurists?