Machine learning-based multi-omics models for diagnostic classification and risk stratification in diabetic kidney disease

IF 6.8 1区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Clinical and Translational Medicine Pub Date : 2025-01-08 DOI:10.1002/ctm2.70133
Xian Shao, Suhua Gao, Pufei Bai, Qian Yang, Yao Lin, Mingzhen Pang, Weixi Wu, Lihua Wang, Ying Li, Saijun Zhou, Hongyan Liu, Pei Yu
{"title":"Machine learning-based multi-omics models for diagnostic classification and risk stratification in diabetic kidney disease","authors":"Xian Shao,&nbsp;Suhua Gao,&nbsp;Pufei Bai,&nbsp;Qian Yang,&nbsp;Yao Lin,&nbsp;Mingzhen Pang,&nbsp;Weixi Wu,&nbsp;Lihua Wang,&nbsp;Ying Li,&nbsp;Saijun Zhou,&nbsp;Hongyan Liu,&nbsp;Pei Yu","doi":"10.1002/ctm2.70133","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Dear Editor,</p><p>The global prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is about 10%.<span><sup>1</sup></span> Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) has emerged as the leading cause of end-stage renal failure.<span><sup>2</sup></span> Early identification of DKD is important for improving the survival rate and improving the quality of life. However, the preclinical stages of DKD may lack obvious symptoms and non-invasive biomarkers.<span><sup>3</sup></span> Through blood lipidomics, urine proteomics and metabolomics technologies, potential DKD markers are identified to establish an accurate early warning model for DKD. We aim to provide effective tools for the individualised prevention of DKD, and help to explain the associations between different molecules and their risk of DKD from multiple perspectives. The methods of study are shown in Appendix 1.</p><p>Figure 1 illustrates the overview of the common and unique changes in proteomics pathways observed at various stages of DKD. The pathways reflected the active biological processes closely related to multi-omics during the development of DKD. Potential proteomic biomarkers were identified through a multi-level screening process, with a comprehensive score used to assess their significance (Appendix 1). Finally, CD300LF, CST4, MMRN2, SERPINA14, L-glutamic acid dimethyl ester (DLG) and phosphatidylcholine (PC) were selected. The results of study are provided in Appendix 2.</p><p>The cross-sectional study included a total of 1500 patients (Figure S2 and Appendix 1). Patients were categorised into four groups: healthy control (HC, 30), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM, 361), high-risk DKD (HR-DKD, 555) and DKD group (554). Baseline patient information is detailed in Appendix 2. The patients were categorised into two groups: a training and a test set (3:1). A total of seven prediction models for diagnosis classification were established, with the included indicators provided in Table S17 and Appendix 2. The integration of clinical indicators with multi-omics indicators resulted in a substantial accuracy improvement (Accuracy = .923 [.893, .947]; Figure 2A–G). This integrated model was the most effective, with improved performance across all metrics, including area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Additionally, the study utilised a total of 12 machine learning algorithms, all of which achieved AUC values above .940 (Figure 2H).</p><p>The prospective cohort study involved 919 patients, with a median follow-up duration of 1.07 years. Based on the clinical and multi-omics indicators, three risk-prognostic prediction models were developed: the biomarker model (Model 1), clinical indicators model (Model 2) and integrated model (Model 3). The specific indicators used are detailed in Table S22 and Appendix 2. Figure 2I displays the AUC curves of these models, with Model 3 achieving the highest AUC of .813. A risk score was calculated using Model 3 (score cut-off = 1.06; Figure 2J). In Figure 2K,L, we compare the predictive performance of the two models using the net reclassification improvement (NRI) index. Furthermore, Figure 2M shows that high-risk patients had higher risk of composite endpoint events (<i>p</i> &lt; .001). The correlation analysis is shown in Figure 3A. The analysis revealed that all six biomarkers showed significant associations with the risk of DKD composite events (<i>p</i> &lt; .001, Figure 3B–G).</p><p>The Cox risk score was calculated using the multi-omics risk prediction model (Model 3). Subsequently, the patients were classified into low-, medium- and high-risk categories. In Figure 3H–J, the high-risk group exhibited a continuous increase in albumin to creatinine ratio (ACR) and decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over 10 years, particularly steep around the 10th year of disease progression, significantly differing from the other groups (<i>p</i> &lt; .001). The low-risk group had the most gradual decline, while the medium-risk group showed a more moderate decline. Interestingly, the medium-risk group present with an insidious progression of DKD. These subgroups can be classified as stable, non-proteinuric insidiously progressive and proteinuric rapidly progressive based on their trajectory changes. This study identified three different molecular subtypes using the MOVICS multi-omics integrated clustering algorithm. Further survival analysis demonstrated that subtype 3 (CS3) was associated with a poorest prognosis (overall <i>p</i> &lt; .001). The study flow is summarised in Graphical Abstract.</p><p>DKD is a complex metabolic disease, making it challenging to explain its intricate intrinsic alterations using a single omics data. The integration of multi-omics data is anticipated to offer a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms of DKD and identify potential biomarkers.<span><sup>4</sup></span> In this study, a classification diagnostic and risk-prognostic model for DKD was developed and validated by combining urinary proteomics, metabolomic, blood lipidomic and clinical data. Over a dozen algorithms related to machine learning were employed to enhance the diagnostic precision of the DKD model. The strengths of this study lie in the integration of multi-omics data within a mixed cohort. Additionally, the study explored the relationship between multi-omics scores and outcome indicators. By combining multi-centre omics and genome-wide association study data analysis, the study achieved dual-screening, improving the precision and reliability of screening markers. Furthermore, the findings offered molecular clusters for identifying subtypes and presented reliable biomarkers of DKD. However, these biomarkers need further validation of biological functions through in vitro and in vivo experiments.</p><p>Firstly, this study lacked renal biopsy as a gold standard for outcome, it also limited the ability to differentiate DKD from other renal disease. Secondly, the selection of multi-omics biomarkers may be biased due to the limited sample size. Although we have made efforts to mitigate this issue through double screening, the potential for bias remains. Furthermore, it is important to evaluate the predictive model in external centres, which will be the subsequent phase of this study. The follow-up period was relatively short, although sufficient endpoint events were recorded. Future efforts will aim to extend the duration of follow-up and increase the sample size.</p><p>In summary, the integration of blood and urine multi-omics data in diabetic patients can accurately classify their current status and predict the prognosis. This study identified molecular clusters to screen for high-risk groups of DKD, especially those non-proteinuric insidious progression of DKD, a subgroup of particular concern in clinical practice. The study also emphasised the importance of cost reduction in clinical scenarios and developed a simplified, reliable and practical prediction model. Furthermore, the identified biomarkers may serve as potential research targets for DKD, providing significant implications for its diagnosis and prevention.</p><p>All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Xian Shao prepared and analysed the data and figures, interpreted the results and wrote the manuscript; Xian Shao and Pei Yu designed this study; Xian Shao, Qian Yang, Pufei Bai, Suhua Gao, Lihua Wang, Ying Li and Weixi Wu collected the data, Qian Yang, Pufei Bai, Suhua Gao, Lihua Wang, Ying Li and Weixi Wu validated the results, Xian Shao, Pufei Bai, Suhua Gao, Ying Li, Saijun Zhou, Mingzhen Pang and Hongyan Liu revised the manuscript.</p><p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p><p>This study was funded by Tianjin Science and Technology Major Special Project and Engineering Public Health Science and Technology Major Special Project (No. 21ZXGWSY00100), Tianjin Natural Science Foundation Key Projects (No. 22JCZDJC00590), Tianjin Key Medical Discipline (Specialty) Construct Project (No. TJYXZDXK-032A), Scientific Research Funding of Tianjin Medical University Chu Hsien-I Memorial Hospital (No. ZXY-ZDSYSZD-1), First Level Leading Talent Project of ‘123 Climbing Plan’ for Clinical Talents of Tianjin Medical University. ‘Tianjin Medical Talents’ project for the second batch of high-level talents selection project in health industry in Tianjin (No. TJSJMYXYC-D2-014). Science and technology project of Tianjin Health Commission (No. TJWJ2024QN032). The funder was not for profit and has no role in the data collection, analysis or interpretation; trial design; patient recruitment; or any aspect pertinent to the study.</p><p>All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki Helsinki Declaration and the Regulations on the Management of Clinical Observation issued by the National Science and Technology Commission. This study is an anonymous, non-interventional observational research that did not negatively impact the health of the subjects. Additionally, the participants remain anonymous throughout the study. Both the prospective and retrospective study were approved by the Ethics Committee (Institution of the Ethics Committee: Chu Hsien-I Memorial Hospital of Tianjin Medical University; Ethics Approval No. ZXYJNYYKMEC2023-47).</p><p>The code are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable individual request.</p><p>Written informed consent for publication was obtained from all participants. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.</p><p>CTM2-2024-08-2591 (REX-PROD-1-625B58B2-4E5A-4DEB-9F1A-19FA03F4D87B-0CDB5296-8070-4C97-98DA-BC07D51BA98E-94625).</p>","PeriodicalId":10189,"journal":{"name":"Clinical and Translational Medicine","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":6.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11707431/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical and Translational Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ctm2.70133","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Dear Editor,

The global prevalence of chronic kidney disease (CKD) is about 10%.1 Diabetic kidney disease (DKD) has emerged as the leading cause of end-stage renal failure.2 Early identification of DKD is important for improving the survival rate and improving the quality of life. However, the preclinical stages of DKD may lack obvious symptoms and non-invasive biomarkers.3 Through blood lipidomics, urine proteomics and metabolomics technologies, potential DKD markers are identified to establish an accurate early warning model for DKD. We aim to provide effective tools for the individualised prevention of DKD, and help to explain the associations between different molecules and their risk of DKD from multiple perspectives. The methods of study are shown in Appendix 1.

Figure 1 illustrates the overview of the common and unique changes in proteomics pathways observed at various stages of DKD. The pathways reflected the active biological processes closely related to multi-omics during the development of DKD. Potential proteomic biomarkers were identified through a multi-level screening process, with a comprehensive score used to assess their significance (Appendix 1). Finally, CD300LF, CST4, MMRN2, SERPINA14, L-glutamic acid dimethyl ester (DLG) and phosphatidylcholine (PC) were selected. The results of study are provided in Appendix 2.

The cross-sectional study included a total of 1500 patients (Figure S2 and Appendix 1). Patients were categorised into four groups: healthy control (HC, 30), type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM, 361), high-risk DKD (HR-DKD, 555) and DKD group (554). Baseline patient information is detailed in Appendix 2. The patients were categorised into two groups: a training and a test set (3:1). A total of seven prediction models for diagnosis classification were established, with the included indicators provided in Table S17 and Appendix 2. The integration of clinical indicators with multi-omics indicators resulted in a substantial accuracy improvement (Accuracy = .923 [.893, .947]; Figure 2A–G). This integrated model was the most effective, with improved performance across all metrics, including area under the curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity and accuracy. Additionally, the study utilised a total of 12 machine learning algorithms, all of which achieved AUC values above .940 (Figure 2H).

The prospective cohort study involved 919 patients, with a median follow-up duration of 1.07 years. Based on the clinical and multi-omics indicators, three risk-prognostic prediction models were developed: the biomarker model (Model 1), clinical indicators model (Model 2) and integrated model (Model 3). The specific indicators used are detailed in Table S22 and Appendix 2. Figure 2I displays the AUC curves of these models, with Model 3 achieving the highest AUC of .813. A risk score was calculated using Model 3 (score cut-off = 1.06; Figure 2J). In Figure 2K,L, we compare the predictive performance of the two models using the net reclassification improvement (NRI) index. Furthermore, Figure 2M shows that high-risk patients had higher risk of composite endpoint events (p < .001). The correlation analysis is shown in Figure 3A. The analysis revealed that all six biomarkers showed significant associations with the risk of DKD composite events (p < .001, Figure 3B–G).

The Cox risk score was calculated using the multi-omics risk prediction model (Model 3). Subsequently, the patients were classified into low-, medium- and high-risk categories. In Figure 3H–J, the high-risk group exhibited a continuous increase in albumin to creatinine ratio (ACR) and decline in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over 10 years, particularly steep around the 10th year of disease progression, significantly differing from the other groups (p < .001). The low-risk group had the most gradual decline, while the medium-risk group showed a more moderate decline. Interestingly, the medium-risk group present with an insidious progression of DKD. These subgroups can be classified as stable, non-proteinuric insidiously progressive and proteinuric rapidly progressive based on their trajectory changes. This study identified three different molecular subtypes using the MOVICS multi-omics integrated clustering algorithm. Further survival analysis demonstrated that subtype 3 (CS3) was associated with a poorest prognosis (overall p < .001). The study flow is summarised in Graphical Abstract.

DKD is a complex metabolic disease, making it challenging to explain its intricate intrinsic alterations using a single omics data. The integration of multi-omics data is anticipated to offer a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms of DKD and identify potential biomarkers.4 In this study, a classification diagnostic and risk-prognostic model for DKD was developed and validated by combining urinary proteomics, metabolomic, blood lipidomic and clinical data. Over a dozen algorithms related to machine learning were employed to enhance the diagnostic precision of the DKD model. The strengths of this study lie in the integration of multi-omics data within a mixed cohort. Additionally, the study explored the relationship between multi-omics scores and outcome indicators. By combining multi-centre omics and genome-wide association study data analysis, the study achieved dual-screening, improving the precision and reliability of screening markers. Furthermore, the findings offered molecular clusters for identifying subtypes and presented reliable biomarkers of DKD. However, these biomarkers need further validation of biological functions through in vitro and in vivo experiments.

Firstly, this study lacked renal biopsy as a gold standard for outcome, it also limited the ability to differentiate DKD from other renal disease. Secondly, the selection of multi-omics biomarkers may be biased due to the limited sample size. Although we have made efforts to mitigate this issue through double screening, the potential for bias remains. Furthermore, it is important to evaluate the predictive model in external centres, which will be the subsequent phase of this study. The follow-up period was relatively short, although sufficient endpoint events were recorded. Future efforts will aim to extend the duration of follow-up and increase the sample size.

In summary, the integration of blood and urine multi-omics data in diabetic patients can accurately classify their current status and predict the prognosis. This study identified molecular clusters to screen for high-risk groups of DKD, especially those non-proteinuric insidious progression of DKD, a subgroup of particular concern in clinical practice. The study also emphasised the importance of cost reduction in clinical scenarios and developed a simplified, reliable and practical prediction model. Furthermore, the identified biomarkers may serve as potential research targets for DKD, providing significant implications for its diagnosis and prevention.

All authors read and approved the final manuscript. Xian Shao prepared and analysed the data and figures, interpreted the results and wrote the manuscript; Xian Shao and Pei Yu designed this study; Xian Shao, Qian Yang, Pufei Bai, Suhua Gao, Lihua Wang, Ying Li and Weixi Wu collected the data, Qian Yang, Pufei Bai, Suhua Gao, Lihua Wang, Ying Li and Weixi Wu validated the results, Xian Shao, Pufei Bai, Suhua Gao, Ying Li, Saijun Zhou, Mingzhen Pang and Hongyan Liu revised the manuscript.

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

This study was funded by Tianjin Science and Technology Major Special Project and Engineering Public Health Science and Technology Major Special Project (No. 21ZXGWSY00100), Tianjin Natural Science Foundation Key Projects (No. 22JCZDJC00590), Tianjin Key Medical Discipline (Specialty) Construct Project (No. TJYXZDXK-032A), Scientific Research Funding of Tianjin Medical University Chu Hsien-I Memorial Hospital (No. ZXY-ZDSYSZD-1), First Level Leading Talent Project of ‘123 Climbing Plan’ for Clinical Talents of Tianjin Medical University. ‘Tianjin Medical Talents’ project for the second batch of high-level talents selection project in health industry in Tianjin (No. TJSJMYXYC-D2-014). Science and technology project of Tianjin Health Commission (No. TJWJ2024QN032). The funder was not for profit and has no role in the data collection, analysis or interpretation; trial design; patient recruitment; or any aspect pertinent to the study.

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki Helsinki Declaration and the Regulations on the Management of Clinical Observation issued by the National Science and Technology Commission. This study is an anonymous, non-interventional observational research that did not negatively impact the health of the subjects. Additionally, the participants remain anonymous throughout the study. Both the prospective and retrospective study were approved by the Ethics Committee (Institution of the Ethics Committee: Chu Hsien-I Memorial Hospital of Tianjin Medical University; Ethics Approval No. ZXYJNYYKMEC2023-47).

The code are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable individual request.

Written informed consent for publication was obtained from all participants. All authors agree to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

CTM2-2024-08-2591 (REX-PROD-1-625B58B2-4E5A-4DEB-9F1A-19FA03F4D87B-0CDB5296-8070-4C97-98DA-BC07D51BA98E-94625).

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
基于机器学习的多组学模型用于糖尿病肾病的诊断分类和风险分层。
亲爱的编辑,慢性肾脏疾病(CKD)的全球患病率约为10%糖尿病肾病(DKD)已成为终末期肾衰竭的主要原因早期发现DKD对提高生存率和改善生活质量具有重要意义。然而,临床前阶段的DKD可能缺乏明显的症状和非侵入性的生物标志物通过血脂组学、尿蛋白质组学和代谢组学技术,鉴定潜在的DKD标志物,建立准确的DKD预警模型。我们的目标是为个体化预防DKD提供有效的工具,并从多个角度解释不同分子之间的关联及其DKD的风险。研究方法见附录1。图1概述了在DKD的不同阶段观察到的蛋白质组学途径的共同和独特变化。这些途径反映了DKD发育过程中与多组学密切相关的活性生物学过程。通过多层次筛选过程确定潜在的蛋白质组学生物标志物,并采用综合评分来评估其显著性(附录1)。最后,选择CD300LF、CST4、MMRN2、SERPINA14、l -谷氨酸二甲酯(DLG)和磷脂酰胆碱(PC)。研究结果见附录2。横断面研究共纳入1500例患者(图S2和附录1)。患者分为四组:健康对照(HC, 30例)、2型糖尿病(T2DM, 361例)、高危DKD (HR-DKD, 555例)和DKD组(554例)。基线患者信息详见附录2。将患者分为两组:训练组和测试组(3:1)。共建立7个诊断分类预测模型,纳入指标如表S17和附录2所示。将临床指标与多组学指标相结合,准确率显著提高(准确率= .923)。893年,.947];图2 g)。这种综合模型是最有效的,在所有指标上都有提高,包括曲线下面积(AUC)、灵敏度、特异性和准确性。此外,该研究共使用了12种机器学习算法,所有算法的AUC值都在0.940以上(图2H)。该前瞻性队列研究涉及919例患者,中位随访时间为1.07年。基于临床和多组学指标,我们建立了三种风险预后预测模型:生物标志物模型(模型1)、临床指标模型(模型2)和综合模型(模型3)。具体使用的指标见表S22和附录2。图2I显示了这些模型的AUC曲线,其中Model 3的AUC最高,为0.813。采用模型3计算风险评分(评分临界值= 1.06;图2 j)。在图2K,L中,我们使用净重分类改进(NRI)指数比较了两种模型的预测性能。此外,图2M显示,高危患者发生复合终点事件的风险更高(p &lt;措施)。相关分析如图3A所示。分析显示,所有六种生物标志物均与DKD复合事件的风险显著相关(p &lt;.001,图3B-G)。采用多组学风险预测模型(模型3)计算Cox风险评分。随后将患者分为低、中、高风险三类。在图3H-J中,高危组在10年内白蛋白与肌酐比值(ACR)持续升高,肾小球滤过率(eGFR)估计值下降,特别是在疾病进展的第10年左右急剧下降,与其他组显著不同(p &lt;措施)。低风险组的下降最为缓慢,而中等风险组的下降更为温和。有趣的是,中等风险组存在潜伏的DKD进展。这些亚群可根据其轨迹变化分为稳定型、非蛋白尿隐性进展型和蛋白尿快速进展型。本研究使用MOVICS多组学集成聚类算法鉴定了三种不同的分子亚型。进一步的生存分析表明,亚型3 (CS3)与较差的预后相关(总p &lt;措施)。研究流程在图形摘要中进行了总结。DKD是一种复杂的代谢疾病,使用单一组学数据解释其复杂的内在改变具有挑战性。多组学数据的整合有望提供对DKD机制的全面理解,并识别潜在的生物标志物本研究结合尿蛋白质组学、代谢组学、血脂组学和临床数据,建立并验证了DKD的分类诊断和风险预后模型。 采用了十几种与机器学习相关的算法来提高DKD模型的诊断精度。本研究的优势在于在混合队列中整合多组学数据。此外,该研究还探讨了多组学评分与结局指标之间的关系。本研究通过多中心组学和全基因组关联研究数据分析相结合,实现了双重筛选,提高了筛选标记物的准确性和可靠性。此外,研究结果为鉴别DKD亚型提供了分子簇,并提供了可靠的生物标志物。然而,这些生物标志物还需要通过体内和体外实验进一步验证其生物学功能。首先,本研究缺乏肾活检作为预后的金标准,这也限制了区分DKD与其他肾脏疾病的能力。其次,由于样本量有限,多组学生物标志物的选择可能存在偏差。虽然我们已经努力通过双重筛选来减轻这个问题,但偏见的可能性仍然存在。此外,重要的是评估外部中心的预测模型,这将是本研究的后续阶段。虽然记录了足够的终点事件,但随访期相对较短。今后的工作将旨在延长随访时间和增加样本量。综上所述,整合糖尿病患者的血尿多组学数据可以准确地对其现状进行分类并预测预后。本研究确定了分子簇来筛选DKD的高危人群,特别是那些非蛋白尿隐性进展的DKD,这是临床实践中特别关注的一个亚组。该研究还强调了降低临床成本的重要性,并开发了一种简化、可靠和实用的预测模型。此外,鉴定的生物标志物可能作为DKD的潜在研究靶点,为其诊断和预防提供重要意义。所有作者都阅读并批准了最终的手稿。冼绍准备分析数据和图表,解释结果并撰写稿件;冼绍、裴宇设计了本研究;邵先、杨茜、白朴飞、高素华、王丽华、李颖、吴伟喜收集数据,杨茜、白朴飞、高素华、王丽华、李颖、吴伟喜验证结果,邵先、白朴飞、高素华、李莹、周赛军、庞明珍、刘红艳修改稿件。作者声明无利益冲突。本研究由天津市科技重大专项和工程公共卫生科技重大专项(No. 21ZXGWSY00100)、天津市自然科学基金重点项目(No. 22JCZDJC00590)、天津市医学重点学科(专业)建设项目(No. 22JCZDJC00590)资助。TJYXZDXK-032A),天津医科大学朱贤一纪念医院科研资助项目(No.;天津医科大学临床人才“123攀登计划”一级领军人才项目;天津市第二批健康产业高层次人才选拔项目“天津市医学人才”项目(项目编号:8111111);tjsjmyxyc - d2 - 014)。天津市卫生健康委科技资助项目(No.;TJWJ2024QN032)。资助者不以营利为目的,不参与数据的收集、分析或解释;试验设计;病人招募;或者任何与研究相关的方面。所有涉及人类受试者的研究程序均按照《赫尔辛基宣言》和国家科委《临床观察管理规定》执行。本研究是一项匿名、非干预性观察性研究,对受试者的健康没有负面影响。此外,参与者在整个研究过程中都是匿名的。前瞻性和回顾性研究均经伦理委员会批准(伦理委员会机构:天津医科大学朱贤一纪念医院;伦理批准号ZXYJNYYKMEC2023-47)。代码可根据个人合理要求从通讯作者处获得。获得了所有参与者的书面知情同意。所有作者同意对工作的各个方面负责,以确保与工作任何部分的准确性或完整性相关的问题得到适当的调查和解决。ctm2 - 2024 - 08 - 2591(雷克斯-刺激- 1 - 625 - b58b2 - 4 - e5a deb - 9 - f1a - 19 - fa03f4d87b - 0 - cdb5296 - 8070 - 4 - c97 - 98 - da - bc07d51ba98e - 94625)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.90
自引率
1.90%
发文量
450
审稿时长
4 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical and Translational Medicine (CTM) is an international, peer-reviewed, open-access journal dedicated to accelerating the translation of preclinical research into clinical applications and fostering communication between basic and clinical scientists. It highlights the clinical potential and application of various fields including biotechnologies, biomaterials, bioengineering, biomarkers, molecular medicine, omics science, bioinformatics, immunology, molecular imaging, drug discovery, regulation, and health policy. With a focus on the bench-to-bedside approach, CTM prioritizes studies and clinical observations that generate hypotheses relevant to patients and diseases, guiding investigations in cellular and molecular medicine. The journal encourages submissions from clinicians, researchers, policymakers, and industry professionals.
期刊最新文献
P2X7R deficiency alleviates cardiac senescence by enhancing mitophagy via the HuR/TRIM26/NR4A1 axis. Unveiling miR-451a and miR-142-3p as prognostic markers in non-small cell lung cancer via small extracellular vesicle liquid biopsy. Single-cell multi-omics analysis of the tumour microenvironment for colorectal cancer liver metastasis. Revolutionising acute aortic syndrome diagnosis: The role of artificial intelligence in non-contrast computed tomography Two pathogens, one disease: Rethinking leprosy diversification through ancient and modern genomes
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1