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.

Background: The genetic basis for hyperglycaemia in pregnancy remain unclear. This study aimed to uncover the genetic determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and investigate their applications. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for GDM in Chinese women (464 cases and 1,217 controls), followed by de novo replications in an independent Chinese cohort (564 cases and 572 controls) and in silico replication in European (12,332 cases and 131,109 controls) and multi-ethnic populations (5,485 cases and 347,856 controls). A polygenic risk score (PRS) was derived based on the identified variants. Results: Using the genome-wide scan and candidate gene approaches, we identified four susceptibility loci for GDM. These included three previously reported loci for GDM and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at MTNR1B (rs7945617, odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.38 to 1.96]), CDKAL1 (rs7754840, OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.58), and INS-IGF2-KCNQ1 (rs2237897, OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.79), as well as a novel genome-wide significant locus near TBR1-SLC4A10 (rs117781972, OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.61 to 2.62; Pmeta=7.6×10-9), which has not been previously reported in GWAS for T2DM or glycaemic traits. Moreover, we found that women with a high PRS (top quintile) had over threefold (95% CI, 2.30 to 4.09; Pmeta=3.1×10-14) and 71% (95% CI, 1.08 to 2.71; P=0.0220) higher risk for GDM and abnormal glucose tolerance post-pregnancy, respectively, compared to other individuals. Conclusion Our results indicate that the genetic architecture of glucose metabolism exhibits both similarities and differences between the pregnant and non-pregnant states. Integrating genetic information can facilitate identification of pregnant women at a higher risk of developing GDM or later diabetes.

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.

Background: The genetic basis for hyperglycaemia in pregnancy remain unclear. This study aimed to uncover the genetic determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and investigate their applications. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for GDM in Chinese women (464 cases and 1,217 controls), followed by de novo replications in an independent Chinese cohort (564 cases and 572 controls) and in silico replication in European (12,332 cases and 131,109 controls) and multi-ethnic populations (5,485 cases and 347,856 controls). A polygenic risk score (PRS) was derived based on the identified variants. Results: Using the genome-wide scan and candidate gene approaches, we identified four susceptibility loci for GDM. These included three previously reported loci for GDM and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at MTNR1B (rs7945617, odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.38 to 1.96]), CDKAL1 (rs7754840, OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.58), and INS-IGF2-KCNQ1 (rs2237897, OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.79), as well as a novel genome-wide significant locus near TBR1-SLC4A10 (rs117781972, OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.61 to 2.62; Pmeta=7.6×10-9), which has not been previously reported in GWAS for T2DM or glycaemic traits. Moreover, we found that women with a high PRS (top quintile) had over threefold (95% CI, 2.30 to 4.09; Pmeta=3.1×10-14) and 71% (95% CI, 1.08 to 2.71; P=0.0220) higher risk for GDM and abnormal glucose tolerance post-pregnancy, respectively, compared to other individuals. Conclusion Our results indicate that the genetic architecture of glucose metabolism exhibits both similarities and differences between the pregnant and non-pregnant states. Integrating genetic information can facilitate identification of pregnant women at a higher risk of developing GDM or later diabetes.

Background: The genetic basis for hyperglycaemia in pregnancy remain unclear. This study aimed to uncover the genetic determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and investigate their applications. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for GDM in Chinese women (464 cases and 1,217 controls), followed by de novo replications in an independent Chinese cohort (564 cases and 572 controls) and in silico replication in European (12,332 cases and 131,109 controls) and multi-ethnic populations (5,485 cases and 347,856 controls). A polygenic risk score (PRS) was derived based on the identified variants. Results: Using the genome-wide scan and candidate gene approaches, we identified four susceptibility loci for GDM. These included three previously reported loci for GDM and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at MTNR1B (rs7945617, odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.38 to 1.96]), CDKAL1 (rs7754840, OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.58), and INS-IGF2-KCNQ1 (rs2237897, OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.79), as well as a novel genome-wide significant locus near TBR1-SLC4A10 (rs117781972, OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.61 to 2.62; Pmeta=7.6×10-9), which has not been previously reported in GWAS for T2DM or glycaemic traits. Moreover, we found that women with a high PRS (top quintile) had over threefold (95% CI, 2.30 to 4.09; Pmeta=3.1×10-14) and 71% (95% CI, 1.08 to 2.71; P=0.0220) higher risk for GDM and abnormal glucose tolerance post-pregnancy, respectively, compared to other individuals. Conclusion Our results indicate that the genetic architecture of glucose metabolism exhibits both similarities and differences between the pregnant and non-pregnant states. Integrating genetic information can facilitate identification of pregnant women at a higher risk of developing GDM or later diabetes.

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.

Background: The genetic basis for hyperglycaemia in pregnancy remain unclear. This study aimed to uncover the genetic determinants of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) and investigate their applications. Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of genome-wide association studies (GWAS) for GDM in Chinese women (464 cases and 1,217 controls), followed by de novo replications in an independent Chinese cohort (564 cases and 572 controls) and in silico replication in European (12,332 cases and 131,109 controls) and multi-ethnic populations (5,485 cases and 347,856 controls). A polygenic risk score (PRS) was derived based on the identified variants. Results: Using the genome-wide scan and candidate gene approaches, we identified four susceptibility loci for GDM. These included three previously reported loci for GDM and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) at MTNR1B (rs7945617, odds ratio [OR], 1.64; 95% confidence interval [CI],1.38 to 1.96]), CDKAL1 (rs7754840, OR, 1.33; 95% CI, 1.13 to 1.58), and INS-IGF2-KCNQ1 (rs2237897, OR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.79), as well as a novel genome-wide significant locus near TBR1-SLC4A10 (rs117781972, OR, 2.05; 95% CI, 1.61 to 2.62; Pmeta=7.6×10-9), which has not been previously reported in GWAS for T2DM or glycaemic traits. Moreover, we found that women with a high PRS (top quintile) had over threefold (95% CI, 2.30 to 4.09; Pmeta=3.1×10-14) and 71% (95% CI, 1.08 to 2.71; P=0.0220) higher risk for GDM and abnormal glucose tolerance post-pregnancy, respectively, compared to other individuals. Conclusion Our results indicate that the genetic architecture of glucose metabolism exhibits both similarities and differences between the pregnant and non-pregnant states. Integrating genetic information can facilitate identification of pregnant women at a higher risk of developing GDM or later diabetes.

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.

Cardiovascular disease (CVD), chronic kidney disease (CKD), and metabolic disorders are the 3 major chronic diseases threatening human health, which are closely related and often coexist, significantly increasing the difficulty of disease management. In response, the American Heart Association (AHA) proposed a novel disease concept of “cardiovascular-kidney-metabolic (CKM) syndrome” in October 2023, which has triggered widespread concern about the co-treatment of heart and kidney diseases and the prevention and treatment of metabolic disorders around the world. This review posits that effectively managing CKM syndrome requires a new and multidimensional paradigm for diagnosis and risk prediction that integrates biological insights, advanced technology and social determinants of health (SDoH). We argue that the core pathological driver is a “metabolic toxic environment”, fueled by adipose tissue dysfunction and characterized by a vicious cycle of systemic inflammation and oxidative stress, which forms a common pathway to multi-organ injury. The at-risk population is defined not only by biological characteristics but also significantly impacted by adverse SDoH, which can elevate the risk of advanced CKM by a factor of 1.18 to 3.50, underscoring the critical need for equity in screening and care strategies. This review systematically charts the progression of diagnostic technologies. In diagnostics, we highlight a crucial shift from single-marker assessments to comprehensive multi-marker panels. The synergistic application of traditional biomarkers like NT-proBNP (reflecting cardiac stress) and UACR (indicating kidney damage) with emerging indicators such as systemic immune-inflammation index (SII) and Klotho protein facilitates a holistic evaluation of multi-organ health. Furthermore, this paper explores the pivotal role of non-invasive monitoring technologies in detecting subclinical disease. Techniques like multi-wavelength photoplethysmography (PPG) and impedance cardiography (ICG) provide a real-time window into microcirculatory and hemodynamic status, enabling the identification of early, often asymptomatic, functional abnormalities that precede overt organ failure. In imaging, progress is marked by a move towards precise, quantitative evaluation, exemplified by artificial intelligence-powered quantitative computed tomography (AI-QCT). By integrating AI-QCT with clinical risk factors, the predictive accuracy for cardiovascular events within 6 months significantly improves, with the area under the curve (AUC) increasing from 0.637 to 0.688, demonstrating its potential for reclassifying risk in CKM stage 3. In the domain of risk prediction, we trace the evolution from traditional statistical tools to next-generation models. The new PREVENT equation represents a major advancement by incorporating key kidney function markers (eGFR, UACR), which can enhance the detection rate of CKD in primary care by 20%-30%. However, we contend that the future lies in dynamic, machine learning-based models. Algorithms such as XGBoost have achieved an AUC of 0.82 for predicting 365-day cardiovascular events, while deep learning models like KFDeep have demonstrated exceptional performance in predicting kidney failure risk with an AUC of 0.946. Unlike static calculators, these AI-driven tools can process complex, multimodal data and continuously update risk profiles, paving the way for truly personalized and proactive medicine. In conclusion, this review advocates for a paradigm shift toward a holistic and technologically advanced framework for CKM management. Future efforts must focus on the deep integration of multimodal data, the development of novel AI-driven biomarkers, the implementation of refined SDoH-informed interventions, and the promotion of interdisciplinary collaboration to construct an efficient, equitable, and effective system for CKM screening and intervention.