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.

Pyroptosis is the programmed death of cells accompanied by an inflammatory response and is widely involved in the development of a variety of diseases, such as infectious diseases, cardiovascular diseases, and neurodegeneration. It has been shown that cellular scorching is involved in the pathogenesis of pulmonary arterial hypertension ( PAH) in cardiovascular diseases. Patients with PAH have perivascular inflammatory infiltrates in lungs, pulmonary vasculopathy exists in an extremely inflam-matory microenvironment, and pro-inflammatory factors in cellular scorching drive pulmonary vascular remodelling in PAH patients. This article reviews the role of cellular scorch in the pathogenesis of PAH and the related research on drugs for the treatment of PAH, with the aim of providing new ideas for clinical treatment of PAH.

Objective:To construct a diabetes foot prediction model for adult patients with type 2 diabetes based on retrospective cohort study using data from a regional health data platform.Methods:Using Yinzhou Health Information Platform of Ningbo, adult patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2022 were included in this study and divided randomly the train and test sets according to the ratio of 7∶3. LASSO regression model and bidirectional stepwise regression model were used to identify risk factors, and model comparisons were conducted with net reclassification index, integrated discrimination improvement and concordance index. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazard regression models were constructed, and a nomogram plot was drawn. Area under the curve (AUC) was calculated as a discriminant evaluation indicator for model validation test its calibration ability, and calibration curves were drawn to test its calibration ability.Results:No significant difference existed between LASSO regression model and bidirectional stepwise regression model, but the better bidirectional stepwise regression model was selected as the final model. The risk factors included age of onset, gender, hemoglobin A1c, estimated glomerular filtration rate, taking angiotensin receptor blocker and smoking history. AUC values (95% CI) of risk outcome prediction at year 5 and 7 were 0.700 (0.650-0.749) and 0.715(0.668-0.762) for the train set and 0.738 (0.667-0.801) and 0.723 (0.663-0.783) for the test set, respectively. The calibration curves were close to the ideal curve, and the model discrimination and calibration powers were both good. Conclusions:This study established a convenient prediction model for diabetic foot and classified the risk levels. The model has strong interpretability, good discrimination power, and satisfactory calibration and can be used to predict the incidence of diabetes foot in adult patients with type 2 diabetes to provide a basis for self-assessment and clinical prediction of diabetic foot disease risk.

Objective:To develop a prediction model for the risk of diabetic retinopathy (DR) in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM).Methods:Patients with new diagnosis of T2DM recorded in Yinzhou Regional Health Information Platform between January 1, 2015 and December 31, 2022 were included in the study. The predictor variables were selected by using Lasso-Cox proportional hazards regression model. Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to establish the prediction model for the risk of DR. Bootstrap method (500 resamples) was used for internal validation, and the performance of the model was assessed by C-index, the receiver operating characteristic curve and area under the curve (AUC), and calibration curve.Results:The predictor variables included in the final model were age of T2DM onset, education level, fasting plasma glucose, glycated hemoglobin A1c, urinary albumin, estimated glomerular filtration rate, and history of lipid-lowering agent and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor uses. The C-index of the final model was 0.622, and the mean corrected C-index was 0.623 (95% CI: 0.607-0.634). The AUC values for predicting the risk of DR after 3, 5, and 7 years were 0.631, 0.620, and 0.624, respectively, with a high degree of overlap of the calibration curves with the ideal curves. Conclusion:In this study, a simple and practical risk prediction model for DR risk prediction was developed, which could be used as a reference for individualized DR screening and intervention in newly diagnosed T2DM patients.

Objective:To construct a risk prediction model for diabetes kidney disease (DKD).Methods:Patients newly diagnosed with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2022, were selected as study subjects from the Yinzhou Regional Health Information Platform in Ningbo City. The Lasso method was used to screen the risk factors, and the DKD risk prediction model was established using Cox proportional hazard regression models. Bootstrap 500 resampling was applied for internal validation.Results:The study included 49 706 subjects, with an median ( Q1, Q3) age of 60.00 (50.00, 68.00) years old, and 55% were male. A total of 4 405 subjects eventually developed DKD. Age at first diagnosis of T2DM, BMI, education level, fasting plasma glucose, glycated hemoglobin A1c, urinary albumin, past medical history (hyperuricemia, rheumatic diseases), triglycerides, and estimated glomerular filtration rate were included in the final model. The final model's C-index was 0.653, with an average of 0.654 after Bootstrap correction. The final model's area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for predicting 4-year, 5-year, and 6-year was 0.657, 0.659, and 0.664, respectively. The calibration curve was closely aligned with the ideal curve. Conclusions:This study constructed a DKD risk prediction model for newly diagnosed T2DM patients based on real-world data that is simple, easy to use, and highly practical. It provides a reliable basis for screening high-risk groups for DKD.