Background: Hearing loss (HL) is one of the most common sensory disorders, affecting over 5-8% of the world's population. Approximately half of HL cases are attributed to genetic factors. In hereditary deafness, about 75-80% is inherited through autosomal recessive inheritance, and common pathogenic genes include GJB2 and SLC26A4. Pathogenic variants in the SLC26A4gene are the leading cause of hereditary hearing loss in humans, second only to the GJB2 gene. Variants in the SLC26A4gene cause hearing loss, which can be non-syndromic autosomal recessive deafness (DFNB4, OMIM #600791) associated with enlarged vestibular aqueduct (EVA) or Pendred syndrome (Pendred, OMIM #605646). DFNB4 is characterized by sensorineural hearing loss combined with EVA or less common cochlear malformation defect. Pendred syndrome is characterized by bilateral sensorineural hearing loss with EVA and an iodine defect that can lead to thyroid goiter. Currently, it is known that EVA is associated with variants in the SLC26A4 gene and is a penetrant feature of SLC26A4-related HL. Predominant mutations in these genes differ significantly across populations. For instance, predominant SLC26A4 mutations differ among populations, including p.T416P and c.1001G>A in Caucasians, p.H723R in Japanese and Koreans, and c.919-2A>G in Han Taiwanese and Han Chinese. On the other hand, there has been no study of hearing loss related to SLC26A4 gene variants among Mongolians, which is the basis of our research. Aim: We aimed to identify the characteristics of the SLC26A4 gene variants in Mongolian people with Enlarged vestibular aqueduct and Mondini malformation. Materials and Methods: In 2022-2024, We included 13 people with hearing loss and enlarged vestibular aqueduct, incomplete cochlea (1.5 turns of the cochlea with cystic apex- incomplete partition type II- Mondini malformation) were examined by CT scan of the temporal bone in our study. WES (Whole exome sequencing) analysis was performed in the Genetics genetic-laboratory of the National Taiwan University Hospital. Results: Genetic analysis revealed 26 confirmed pathogenic variants of bi-allelic SLC26A4 gene of 8 different types in 13 cases, and c.919-2A>G variant was dominant with 46% (12/26) in allele frequency, and c.2027T>A (p.L676Q) variant 19% (5/26), c.1318A>T(p.K440X) variant 11% (3/26), c.1229C>T (p.T410M) variant 8% (2/26) ) , c.716T>A (p.V239D), c.281C>T (p.T94I), c.1546dupC, and c.1975G>C (p.V659L) variants were each 4% (1/26)- revealed. Two male children, 11 years old (SLC26A4: c.919-2A>G) and 7 years old (SLC26A4: c.919-2A>G:, SLC26A4: c.2027T>A (p.L676Q))had history of born normal hearing and progressive hearing loss. Conclusions 1. 26 variants of bi-allelic SLC26A4 gene mutation were detected in Mongolian people with EVA and Mondini malformation, and c.919-2A>G was the most dominant allele variant, and rare variants such as c.1546dupC, c.716T>A (p.V239D) were detected. 2. Our study shows that whole-exome sequencing (WES) can identify gene mutations that are not detected by polymerase chain reaction (PCR) or NGS analysis.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Objective To compare clinical efficacy of robot-assisted(RA)and remote sensing navigation alignment(RSNA)system-assisted total knee arthroplasty(TKA).Methods From March 2023 to June 2023,60 patients who underwent the first unilateral TKA due to severe knee osteoarthritis(KOA)were admitted and divided into RSNA group and RA group according to different treatment methods,with 30 patients in each group.There were 5 males and 25 females in RSNA group,aged from 56 to 81 years old with an average of(66.33±7.16)years old;body mass index(BM1)ranged from 19.87 to 38.54 kg·m-2 with an average of(28.40±6.18)kg·m-2;the courses of disease ranged from 5 to 36 months with an average of(18.20±8.98)months;RSNA system was used to assist the positioning of osteotomy.There were 7 males and 23 females in RA group,aged from 55 to 82 years old with an average of(67.83±8.61)years old;BMI ranged from 19.67 to 37.25 kg·m-2 with an aver-age of(28.01±4.89)kg·m-2;the courses of disease ranged from 3 to 33 months with an average of(17.93±9.20)months;RA was performed.Operation time,incision length,latent blood loss at 2 weeks after operation and incidence of lower extremity thrombosis were compared between two groups.Hip-knee ankle angle(HKAA),HKAA deviation,lateral distal femoral angle(LDFA),medial proximal tibial angle(MPTA)and posterior tibial slope(PTS)were compared between two groups;Western Ontario McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index(WOMAC)and Knee Society score(KSS)were used to evaluate functional recovery before operation,3 and 6 months after operation.Results The operation was performed successfully in both groups,and there were no serious complications such as vascular and nerve injury during operation.The wound healed well at stage Ⅰafter operation,and the follow-up time was 6 months.The operation time,latent blood loss at 2 weeks after operation and inci-sion length in RSNA group were(94.35±5.75)min,(130.54±17.53)mland(14.73±2.14)cm,respectively;while(102.57±6.88)min,(146.33±19.47)ml and(16.78±2.32)cm in RA group,respectively.RSNA group was better than RA group(P＜0.05).No deep vein thrombosis occurred in both groups at 2 weeks after operation,5 patients occurred intermuscular vein throm-bosisin in RSNA group and 8 patients in RA group,the difference was not statistically significant(P＞0.05).In RSNA group,HKAA,LDFA and MPTA were(173.00±5.54)°,(86.96±3.45)°,(82.79±3.35)° before operation,and(178.34±1.85)°,(89.92±0.42)°,(89.84±0.73)° at 1 week after operation,respectively.In RA group,HKAA,LDFA and MPTA were(173.31±6.48)°,(87.15±3.40)° and(82.99±3.05)° before operation,and(178.52±1.79)°,(90.03±0.39)° and(90.15±0.47)° at 1 week after operation,respectively.HKAA,LDFA and MPTA were significantly improved in both groups at 1 week after oper-ation(P＜0.05).There were no significant difference in HKAA,LDFA,MPTA and PTS between two groups before operation and 1 week after operation(P＞0.05).There was no significant difference in deviation distribution of HKAA at 1 week after op-eration(x2=2.61 1,P=0.456).There were no significant difference in WOMAC and KSS between two groups before operation,3 and 6 months after operation(P＞0.05),and postoperative WOMAC and KSS at 3 and 6 months between two groups were im-proved compared with those before operation(P＜0.05).Conclusion Both RA and RSNA system assisted TKA could obtain ac-curate osteotomy,RA has higher surgical accuracy,RSNA system assisted operation has less trauma,and operation is simpler.

Objective To explore clinical accuracy of remote sensing navigation alignment(RSNA)system in total knee arthroplasty(TKA)and its influence on postoperative clinical efficacy.Methods From May 2021 to May 2022,60 knee os-teoarthritis(KOA)patients with Kellgren-Lawrence(K-L)grade Ⅲ to Ⅳ treated by unilateral primary TKA were selected and divided into RSNA group and traditional operation group according to treatment methods,and 30 patients in each group.There were 6 males and 24 females in RSNA group,aged from 55 to 86 years old with an average of(68.06±8.23)years old;body mass index(BMI)ranged from 22.15 to 34.58 kg·m-2 with an average of(28.20±3.01)kg·m-2;the courses of disease ranged from 2 to 60 months with an average of(18.80±14.80)months;13 patients with grade Ⅲ and 17 patients with grade Ⅳaccording to K-L grading.In traditional operation group,there were 8 males and 22 females,aged from 57 to 85 years old with an average of(67.26±6.32)years old;BMI ranged from 23.94 to 34.55 kg·m-2 with an average of(27.49±2.32)kg·m-2;the courses of disease ranged from 3 to 60 months with an average of(21.30±16.44)months;14 patients with grade Ⅲ and 16 pa-tients with grade Ⅳ according to K-L grading.Western Ontario and McMaster Universities(WOMAC)osteoarthritis index and Knee Society score(KSS)were used to evaluate functional recovery of patients.Hip-knee-ankle angle(HKAA),distal femoral valgus angle(FVA)and distal fermoral flexion angle(DFFA)were measured before operation.HKAA and HKAA deviation angle were measured at 1 week after operation,and defective rate of lower limb force line,femur prosthesis valgus angle(FP-VA)and femoral prosthesis flexion angle(FPFA),respectively,were calculated.Results There were no serious complications such as vascular and nerve injury during operation,and wound healed at stage Ⅰ.Both groups were followed up for 6 months.There were no significant difference in WOMAC index,KSS,HKAA,FVA and DFFA between two groups before operation(P＞0.05).The force line defect rate,HKAA,HKAA deviation angle,FPVA deviation angle and FPFA of RSNA group were 6.7％,(178.74±1.56)°,(1.25±1.56)°,(1.84±0.16)° and(4.85±2.46)°,respectively;while in traditional operation group were 20％,(176.73±3.46)°,(3.27±3.46)°,(2.44±0.26)°,(6.60±1.86)°;the difference between two groups were statistically sig-nificant(P＜0.05).There were no significant difference in WOMAC index and KSS between two groups at 3 and 6 months after operation(P＞0.05).Conclusion RSNA system could reduce defective rate of lower limb force line,FPVA deviation angle and FPFA after TKA,which is more accurate and easy to operate than traditional intramedullary localization surgery while ensuring postoperative efficacy.

Objective:To conduct a scoping review of research on the self-advocacy of adult cancer patients to identify their self-advocacy needs, behaviors, strengths and weaknesses, so as to provide guidance for future research in this field.Methods:Using the scoping review guidelines of Joanna Briggs Institute in Australia as a methodological framework, relevant literatures were searched in PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Library, Embase, Science Direct, CINAHL, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wanfang, VIP and China Biology Medicine disc. The search period was from establishment of the databases to December 2023, and the results were summarized and analyzed.Results:A total of 14 articles were included, and self-advocacy needs included six types of needs, such as symptom management, communication, interpersonal support, disease information, decision-making and emotional management. Self-advocacy included four aspects, including seeking information, self-decision-making, strengthening contact with the outside world and effective communication.Conclusions:Adult cancer patients have diverse types of self-advocacy needs and certain self-advocacy behaviors. Future research should pay attention to self-advocacy needs assessment, develop corresponding tools, focus on self-advocacy behaviors, leverage the advantages of self-advocacy and explore strategies to achieve effective self-advocacy support.

Objective:To conduct a scoping review of the application of mobile health applications (MHA) in the care of patients with colorectal cancer, summarizing the development process, the functions achieved, as well as the evaluation metrics, to provide references for MHA practice and related research.Methods:Following the scoping review framework, a comprehensive search was conducted across both domestic and international databases, including the China Biomedical Literature Database, Wanfang Database, China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), VIP Database, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, Web of Science, and Scopus. The search period was from the database inception to February, 2024.Results:A total of 16 studies were included. The development of MHA involved multiple methods including literature reviews, qualitative interviews, consultations with multidisciplinary teams, and guidance from theoretical models. The functions of MHA include health education, peer support, guided feedback, monitoring, and reminder features. Evaluation metrics for MHA comprise usability, adherence, and effectiveness.Conclusions:MHA has demonstrated positive effects in enhancing patients' knowledge and alleviating symptoms such as fatigue and vomiting in colorectal cancer patients. However, it is still in its early stages, and further high-quality studies are needed to scientifically develop MHA that meets patients' needs.