Clinical practice guidelines represent the best recommendations for patient care. They are developed through systematically reviewing currently available clinical evidence and weighing the relative benefits and risks of various interventions. However, clinical practice guidelines have to go through a long translation cycle from development and revision to clinical promotion and application, facing problems such as scattered distribution, high duplication rate, and low actual utilization. At present, the clinical practice guideline information platform can directly or indirectly solve the problems related to the lengthy revision cycles, decentralized dissemination and limited application of clinical practice guidelines. Therefore, this paper systematically examines different types of clinical practice guideline information platforms and investigates their corresponding challenges and emerging trends in platform design, data integration, and practical implementation, with the aim of clarifying the current status of this field and providing valuable reference for future research on clinical practice guideline information platforms.

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: This study aims to overcome challenges in lumbar spine imaging, particularly lumbar spinal stenosis, by developing an automated segmentation model using advanced techniques. Traditional manual measurement and lesion detection methods are limited by subjectivity and inefficiency. The objective is to create an accurate and automated segmentation model that identifies anatomical structures in lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging scans. Methods: Leveraging a dataset of 539 lumbar spinal stenosis patients, the study utilizes the residual U-Net for semantic segmentation in sagittal and axial lumbar spine magnetic resonance images. The model, trained to recognize specific tissue categories, employs a geometry algorithm for anatomical structure quantification. Validation metrics, like Intersection over Union (IOU) and Dice coefficients, validate the residual U-Net’s segmentation accuracy. A novel rotation matrix approach is introduced for detecting bulging discs, assessing dural sac compression, and measuring yellow ligament thickness. Results: The residual U-Net achieves high precision in segmenting lumbar spine structures, with mean IOU values ranging from 0.82 to 0.93 across various tissue categories and views. The automated quantification system provides measurements for intervertebral disc dimensions, dural sac diameter, yellow ligament thickness, and disc hydration. Consistency between training and testing datasets assures the robustness of automated measurements. Conclusion Automated lumbar spine segmentation with residual U-Net and deep learning exhibits high precision in identifying anatomical structures, facilitating efficient quantification in lumbar spinal stenosis cases. The introduction of a rotation matrix enhances lesion detection, promising improved diagnostic accuracy, and supporting treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Objective:To investigate whether silencing information regulator 1 (SIRT1) activation can relieve paclitaxel-induced neuropathic pain by inhibiting mitochondrial damage in dorsal root ganglion neurons.Methods:Forty-eight healthy male SD rats were randomly divided into solvent control group, paclitaxel group, paclitaxel+SIRT1 inhibitor group and paclitaxel+SIRT1 agonist group ( n=12). Neuropathic pain model in the later 3 groups was prepared by intraperitoneal injection of paclitaxel at 8 mg/kg on the 1 st, 4 th and 7 th d of experiment, respectively; rats in the paclitaxel+SIRT1 inhibitor group and paclitaxel+SIRT1 agonist group were respectively injected with SIRT1 inhibitor EX527 or agonist SRT1720 30 min before the first injection of paclitaxel. In addition, neuropathic pain model was established in 12 rats (model group) by the same method and SIRT1 expression in the dorsal root ganglion tissues was detected by Western blotting 1 d before experiment and on the 3 rd, 7 th and 14 th d of experiment, respectively. Von-Frey filament was used to detect the 50% paw withdrawal mechanical threshold (PWMT), and thermal radiation thermal pain detector was used to evaluate the paw withdraw thermal latency (PWTL) 1 d before experiment and on the 3 rd, 7 th and 14 th d of experiment. On the 7 th d of experiment, 6 rats in each group were sacrificed with excessive anesthesia after PWMT and PWTL detection; L 4-L 6 dorsal root ganglion tissues were rapidly isolated and primary neurons were cultured; Western blotting was used to detect SIRT1 expression in the dorsal root ganglion tissues, JC-1 mitochondrial membrane potential detection kit was used to detect mitochondrial membrane potential (ratio of orange-red fluorescence to green fluorescence), hydrogen peroxide (H 2O 2) detection kit was used to detect H 2O 2 concentration, and mitochondrial superoxide detection kit and mitochondrial green fluorescence probe kit were used to detect mitochondrial superoxide expression. Results:In the model group, SIRT1 expression in the dorsal root ganglion tissues one d before experiment was significantly decreased compared with that on the 3 rd, 7 th and 14 th d of the experiment ( P<0.05). On 3 rd, 7 th and 14 th d of experiment, compared with the solvent control group, the paclitaxel group had significantly decreased 50% PWMT ([6.37±2.27] g, [5.47±2.42] g and [5.34±1.74] g), and PWTL ([9.38±1.27] s, [9.70±1.97] s and [9.12±1.21] s, P<0.05); compared with the paclitaxel group, the paclitaxel+SIRT1 agonist group had significantly increased 50% PWMT ([13.86±3.72] g, [11.87±3.10] g and [12.39±2.94] g) and PWTL ([14.25±2.63] s, [13.29±2.94] s and [14.43±3.91] s), and the paclitaxel+SIRT1 inhibitor group had significantly decreased 50% PWMT [(2.20±1.43] g, [2.43±1.44] g and [2.21±1.56] g) and PWTL ([4.47±1.66] s, [3.65±1.80] s and [3.14±1.59] s, P<0.05). On the 7 th d of experiment, the paclitaxel group had significantly decreased SIRT1 protein expression (53.95±7.37) and ratio of orange-red fluorescence to green fluorescence (48.74±14.57), and significantly increased H 2O 2 concentration ([4.86±0.69] μmol/L) and mitochondrial superoxide expression (180.17±12.08) in the dorsal root ganglion tissues compared with the solvent control group ( P<0.05); compared with the paclitaxel group, the paclitaxel+SIRT1 agonist group had significantly increased SIRT1 expression (97.51±10.09) and ratio of orange-red fluorescence to green fluorescence (83.52±8.60) and decreased H 2O 2 concentration ([2.30±0.39] μmol/L) and mitochondrial superoxide expression (90.17±18.84) in the dorsal root ganglion tissues ( P<0.05); compared with the paclitaxel group, the paclitaxel+SIRT1 inhibitor group had significantly decreased SIRT1 expression (30.80±6.31) and ratio of orange-red fluorescence to green fluorescence (24.60±6.19) and increased H 2O 2 concentration ([10.67±1.85] μmol/L) and mitochondrial superoxide expression (294.52±26.94) in the dorsal root ganglion tissues ( P<0.05). Conclusion:SIRT1 activation can alleviate paclitaxel-induced neuropathic pain by inhibiting mitochondrial damage in dorsal root ganglion neurons.

Objective: This study aims to overcome challenges in lumbar spine imaging, particularly lumbar spinal stenosis, by developing an automated segmentation model using advanced techniques. Traditional manual measurement and lesion detection methods are limited by subjectivity and inefficiency. The objective is to create an accurate and automated segmentation model that identifies anatomical structures in lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging scans. Methods: Leveraging a dataset of 539 lumbar spinal stenosis patients, the study utilizes the residual U-Net for semantic segmentation in sagittal and axial lumbar spine magnetic resonance images. The model, trained to recognize specific tissue categories, employs a geometry algorithm for anatomical structure quantification. Validation metrics, like Intersection over Union (IOU) and Dice coefficients, validate the residual U-Net’s segmentation accuracy. A novel rotation matrix approach is introduced for detecting bulging discs, assessing dural sac compression, and measuring yellow ligament thickness. Results: The residual U-Net achieves high precision in segmenting lumbar spine structures, with mean IOU values ranging from 0.82 to 0.93 across various tissue categories and views. The automated quantification system provides measurements for intervertebral disc dimensions, dural sac diameter, yellow ligament thickness, and disc hydration. Consistency between training and testing datasets assures the robustness of automated measurements. Conclusion Automated lumbar spine segmentation with residual U-Net and deep learning exhibits high precision in identifying anatomical structures, facilitating efficient quantification in lumbar spinal stenosis cases. The introduction of a rotation matrix enhances lesion detection, promising improved diagnostic accuracy, and supporting treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Objective: This study aims to overcome challenges in lumbar spine imaging, particularly lumbar spinal stenosis, by developing an automated segmentation model using advanced techniques. Traditional manual measurement and lesion detection methods are limited by subjectivity and inefficiency. The objective is to create an accurate and automated segmentation model that identifies anatomical structures in lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging scans. Methods: Leveraging a dataset of 539 lumbar spinal stenosis patients, the study utilizes the residual U-Net for semantic segmentation in sagittal and axial lumbar spine magnetic resonance images. The model, trained to recognize specific tissue categories, employs a geometry algorithm for anatomical structure quantification. Validation metrics, like Intersection over Union (IOU) and Dice coefficients, validate the residual U-Net’s segmentation accuracy. A novel rotation matrix approach is introduced for detecting bulging discs, assessing dural sac compression, and measuring yellow ligament thickness. Results: The residual U-Net achieves high precision in segmenting lumbar spine structures, with mean IOU values ranging from 0.82 to 0.93 across various tissue categories and views. The automated quantification system provides measurements for intervertebral disc dimensions, dural sac diameter, yellow ligament thickness, and disc hydration. Consistency between training and testing datasets assures the robustness of automated measurements. Conclusion Automated lumbar spine segmentation with residual U-Net and deep learning exhibits high precision in identifying anatomical structures, facilitating efficient quantification in lumbar spinal stenosis cases. The introduction of a rotation matrix enhances lesion detection, promising improved diagnostic accuracy, and supporting treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis patients.