Abstract:Dear Editor, Polycystic ovary syndrome (PCOS) affects more than 1 in 10 women worldwide.1Stener-Victorin E. Padmanabhan V. Walters K.A. et al.Animal models to understand the etiology and pathophysiology of polycystic ovary syndrome.Endocr. Rev. 2020; 41bnaa010Crossref PubMed Scopus (129) Google Scholar Despite its high prevalence, PCOS and its accompanying morbidities are likely underdiagnosed.2Teede H.J. Misso M.L. Costello M.F. et al.Recommendations from the international evidence-based guideline for the assessment and management of polycystic ovary syndrome.Fertil. Steril. 2018; 110: 364-379Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (563) Google Scholar To induce a PCOS-like phenotype in animals, testosterone and dihydrotestosterone are usually used, indicating that androgen excess is a major contributor to PCOS.3Padmanabhan V. Veiga-Lopez A. Animal models of the polycystic ovary syndrome phenotype.Steroids. 2013; 78: 734-740Crossref PubMed Scopus (99) Google Scholar Anti-Müllerian hormone (AMH) is an upstream regulator of androgen and is well correlated with the androgens.4Zhang X. Xu H. Feng G. et al.Sensitive HPLC-DMS/MS/MS method coupled with dispersive magnetic solid phase extraction followed by in situ derivatization for the simultaneous determination of multiplexing androgens and 17-hydroxyprogesterone in human serum and its application to patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome.Clin. Chim. Acta. 2023; 538: 221-230PubMed Google Scholar Some are advocating that AMH should be considered as a diagnostic marker for PCOS. Previously, we conducted an analysis of 11,720 ovarian stimulation cycles to determine if certain independent variables could be used to predict PCOS. These variables included age, body mass index (BMI), upper limit of menstrual cycle length (UML), antral follicle counts, serum AMH levels, basal follicle-stimulating hormone, basal luteinizing hormone, basal estradiol, basal testosterone, and basal androstenedione (A4) levels. The final four predictive variables included in the original PCOS model, denoted PCOS-4, were serum AMH, UML, BMI, and immune-based detection of serum A4.5Xu H. Feng G. Alpadi K. et al.A model for predicting polycystic ovary syndrome using serum AMH, menstrual cycle length, body mass index and serum androstenedione in Chinese reproductive aged population: a retrospective cohort study.Front. Endocrinol. 2022; 13: 821368Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar In the PCOS-4 model, AMH was the most important predicting variable, contributing 41.2% to the prediction, whereas immune-based A4 contributed only 4.3%. Testosterone was not included in the PCOS-4 model.5Xu H. Feng G. Alpadi K. et al.A model for predicting polycystic ovary syndrome using serum AMH, menstrual cycle length, body mass index and serum androstenedione in Chinese reproductive aged population: a retrospective cohort study.Front. Endocrinol. 2022; 13: 821368Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar In another study, we showed that AMH correlated well with mass spectrometry (MS)-based detection of testosterone and A4 levels in human serum, with Pearson correlation coefficients (r) of 0.57 and 0.51, respectively.4Zhang X. Xu H. Feng G. et al.Sensitive HPLC-DMS/MS/MS method coupled with dispersive magnetic solid phase extraction followed by in situ derivatization for the simultaneous determination of multiplexing androgens and 17-hydroxyprogesterone in human serum and its application to patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome.Clin. Chim. Acta. 2023; 538: 221-230PubMed Google Scholar Nevertheless, the correlation between the A4 level measured in the MS platform and the immune-based chemiluminescence platform was weak in women, with a r2 of 0.285,4Zhang X. Xu H. Feng G. et al.Sensitive HPLC-DMS/MS/MS method coupled with dispersive magnetic solid phase extraction followed by in situ derivatization for the simultaneous determination of multiplexing androgens and 17-hydroxyprogesterone in human serum and its application to patients with polycystic ovarian syndrome.Clin. Chim. Acta. 2023; 538: 221-230PubMed Google Scholar indicating the low precision of the widely used chemiluminescence-based assay for assessing A4. Taking into account the limited contribution of immune-based A4 and its low accuracy, we propose a model for PCOS prediction that omits A4. For this new model, we investigated the same data from 11,720 ovarian stimulation cycles with only three predictors, AMH, UML, and BMI, and called it the PCOS-3. The modeling process was comparable to that used in the PCOS-4 model.5Xu H. Feng G. Alpadi K. et al.A model for predicting polycystic ovary syndrome using serum AMH, menstrual cycle length, body mass index and serum androstenedione in Chinese reproductive aged population: a retrospective cohort study.Front. Endocrinol. 2022; 13: 821368Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar To be specific, the continuous predictors were initially converted into categorical variables with the grouping criteria employed for the PCOS-4 model.5Xu H. Feng G. Alpadi K. et al.A model for predicting polycystic ovary syndrome using serum AMH, menstrual cycle length, body mass index and serum androstenedione in Chinese reproductive aged population: a retrospective cohort study.Front. Endocrinol. 2022; 13: 821368Crossref PubMed Scopus (3) Google Scholar The data were then randomly divided into a training set and a test set in a ratio of 7:3. Model building was performed using the training set, and the performance was assessed using the test set. The newly developed PCOS-3 model was established through 10-fold cross validation in the training set. Finally, we evaluated whether the performance of the simplified PCOS-3 model was similar to that of the PCOS-4 model. The performances of PCOS-3 and PCOS-4 can be compared directly due to the use of the same data (Table 1). A default cutoff of 0.5 was implemented to differentiate between PCOS and non-PCOS; thus, those with a predicted probability of more than 0.5 were considered to be diagnosed with predicted PCOS. However, no significant differences were found between the two models in terms of area under the curve, sensitivity, and specificity, as indicated by the overlapping 95% confidence intervals, indicating that the performances of the two models were comparable. For the purpose of evaluating the calibration of the models, the Brier score was utilized, with 0.067 and 0.066 for the training sets of the PCOS-3 and PCOS-4 models, respectively, and 0.066 and 0.066 for the test sets of the PCOS-3 and PCOS-4 models, respectively. The Brier scores of the two models were similar, suggesting that the calibration of the two models was virtually the same. The net reclassification index (NRI) was utilized to measure the enhancement in the performance of the PCOS-3 model. In the training and test sets, the respective NCIs were −0.022 (−0.035, −0.009) and 0 (−0.023, 0.023). The small negative value in the training set demonstrates that the PCOS-3 model was slightly weaker than the PCOS-4 model. Nonetheless, the performance of both models was comparable in the test set, with the 95% confidence interval including zero. Figure 1A provides an overview of the contribution of each predictor in the two models, including the main effect, which reflects the relative contribution of each variable independently, and the total effect, which takes into account the relative contribution of each variable, both individually and in combination with other variables.Table 1The performance of PCOS-3 and PCOS-4 modelsTraining setValidation setTest setPCOS-3PCOS-4PCOS-3PCOS-4PCOS-3PCOS-4AUC (95% CI)0.850 (0.842, 0.858)0.855 (0.838–0.870)0.851 (0.828, 0.874)0.848 (0.791–0.891)0.841 (0.826, 0.856)0.846 (0.812–0.875)Sensitivity (95% CI)0.339 (0.308, 0.370)0.362 (0.331–0.395)0.384 (0.294, 0.482)0.394 (0.303–0.492)0.383 (0.324, 0.445)0.383 (0.324–0.445)Specificity (95% CI)0.981 (0.978, 0.984)0.981 (0.997–0.983)0.983 (0.972, 0.990)0.985 (0.974–0.991)0.981 (0.974, 0.986)0.981 (0.974–0.986)AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; PCOS, polycystic ovary syndrome; PCOS-3, PCOS model with three predictors of anti-Müllerian hormone, upper limit of menstrual cycle length, and body mass index; PCOS-4, PCOS model with four predictors of anti-Müllerian hormone, upper limit of menstrual cycle length, body mass index, and androstenedione. Open table in a new tab AUC, area under the curve; CI, confidence interval; PCOS, polycystic ovary syndrome; PCOS-3, PCOS model with three predictors of anti-Müllerian hormone, upper limit of menstrual cycle length, and body mass index; PCOS-4, PCOS model with four predictors of anti-Müllerian hormone, upper limit of menstrual cycle length, body mass index, and androstenedione. Based on the association between the PCOS probability predicted by the PCOS-4 model and the actual incidence of PCOS, we have previously classified the population into three groups: low risk (predicted probability <10%), medium risk (predicted probability 10%–50%), and high risk (predicted probability >50%). Figure 1B illustrates the relationship between the PCOS probability predicted by the PCOS-3 model and the real incidence of PCOS. The results demonstrate that the original three groups still apply to the new PCOS-3 model. Subsequently, we once again divided the population into low-, medium-, and high-risk groups. We employed a default cutoff of 0.5 (i.e., predicted probability ≥50%) with the JMP PRO v.16.0 (Cary, NC, USA) software to identify positive PCOS cases. The numbers of predicted and actual PCOS-positive and -negative cases were then depicted in a Venn diagram, as illustrated in Figure 1C. Upon optimizing the cutoff value to 12.2% based on the Youden index (sensitivity + specificity −1),6Fluss R. Faraggi D. Reiser B. Estimation of the youden index and its associated cutoff point.Biom. J. 2005; 47: 458-472Crossref PubMed Scopus (1513) Google Scholar the number of positive cases increased significantly (Figure 1D). Nevertheless, regardless of the cutoff value, the predicted probability of PCOS remained unchanged. To address the misclassification problem, we divided the population into three distinct groups according to the predicted PCOS probability instead of two. We have further improved the PCOS screening online tool, namely PCOSt, which now contains both PCOS-3 and PCOS-4 models (http://121.43.113.123:8888/). Although the onset of PCOS starts in prepuberty, its symptoms are more pronounced than in adulthood; hence, the diagnostic criteria for adults with PCOS are not suitable for adolescent girls.7Peña A.S. Witchel S.F. Hoeger K.M. et al.Adolescent polycystic ovary syndrome according to the international evidence-based guideline.BMC Med. 2020; 18: 72Crossref PubMed Scopus (101) Google Scholar Nonetheless, the PCOS-3 model divides the population into 100 subgroups and arranges them according to their predicted PCOS likelihood (predicted severity). This model could possibly be adapted for adolescent girls by altering the thresholds of medium-risk and high-risk groups; however, this needs to be confirmed through further validation. We developed the enhanced PCOS-3 model to predict PCOS, incorporating just one serum predictor (AMH) as well as two easily accessible predictors: menstrual cycle length and BMI. By omitting immune-based androgen measurements, the PCOS-3 model eliminates the potential imprecision of such an approach. Consequently, PCOS-3 is non-invasive, cost effective, and suitable for general use, not just in hospitals. However, it should be noted that PCOS-3 is only for initial screening; for those diagnosed with PCOS, further androgen-focused8Azziz R. Carmina E. Chen Z. et al.Polycystic ovary syndrome.Nat. Rev. Dis. Prim. 2016; 2: 16057Crossref PubMed Scopus (792) Google Scholar,9Puvithra T. Pandiyan N. Polycystic ovary syndrome is an epiphenomenon - an opinion.Chettinad Health City Med. J. 2016; 5: 106-107Google Scholar subtype diagnosis and treatment will be required.

Abstract:A recent article in Journal of Infection by Fu and colleagues have summarized the clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China, and described that those with medical comorbidities tend to have more severe clinical symptoms and higher case-fatality rate, according to data of 43 studies involving 3600 patients.1Fu L. Wang B. Yuan T. Chen X. Ao Y. Fitzpatrick T. et al.Clinical characteristics of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in China: A systematic review and meta-analysis.J Infect. 2020; 80: 656-665Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (751) Google Scholar Of the data from China, 81% cases were mild, 14% were severe, and 5% were critical, and the case-fatality rate was 2.3% in all cases and 49.0% in critical cases.2Wu Z. McGoogan J.M. Characteristics of and Important Lessons From the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Outbreak in China: Summary of a Report of 72314 Cases From the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention.Jama. 2020; Crossref Scopus (12778) Google Scholar Older age and comorbidities, such as cardiovascular disease, confer a higher risk for severe disease, and young and otherwise healthy patients are also at risk for complications.3Verity R. Okell L.C. Dorigatti I. Winskill P. Whittaker C. Imai N. et al.Estimates of the severity of coronavirus disease 2019: a model-based analysis.The Lancet Infectious diseases. 2020; Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF Scopus (2301) Google Scholar ARDS (Acute respiratory distress syndrome) and respiratory failure, sepsis, acute cardiac injury and heart failure were the most common critical complications during exacerbation of COVID-19. Several laboratory outcomes indicated the severity and the clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients. Previous studies reported that tumor biomarkers, such as carcino embryonic antigen (CEA), cytokeratin 19 fragment (CYFRA21-1), neuron-specific enolase (NSE), squamous cell carcinoma antigen (SCCA) and Pro-Gastrin Releasing Peptide (ProGRP), were elevated in the patients with benign lung disorders, such as pneumonia and pulmonary fibrosis.4Bombardieri E. Seregni E. Bogni A. Ardit S. Belloli S. Busetto A. et al.Evaluation of cytokeratin 19 serum fragments (CYFRA 21-1) in patients with lung cancer: results of a multicenter trial.The International journal of biological markers. 1994; 9: 89-95Crossref PubMed Scopus (23) Google Scholar,5Yang Q. Zhang P. Wu R. Lu K. Zhou H. Identifying the Best Marker Combination in CEA, CA125, CY211, NSE, and SCC for Lung Cancer Screening by Combining ROC Curve and Logistic Regression Analyses: Is It Feasible?.Disease markers. 2018; 20182082840Crossref PubMed Scopus (81) Google Scholar,6Bubanovic G. Pavicevic R. Franjevic A. Determining the cut-off value of pro-gastrin releasing peptide (ProGRP) in lung cancer according to population characteristics.Collegium antropologicum. 2008; 32: 1155-1164PubMed Google Scholar We would like to share our findings that the role of tumor markers related lung cancer in COVID-19 patients as predictive indicators for clinical outcome. A total of 129 patients diagnosed as COVID-19, with 20 moderate (15.50%), 73 severe (56.59%) and 36 critical severe cases (27.91%) on admission, were included in this study. In addition, a total of 80 age-and gender- matched health individuals were enrolled as controls. The patients self-reported medical history of comorbidities were recorded on admission and were classified as hypertension, cardiovascular disease, diabetes (type 2), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and others. Of 129 cases, 114 cases (88.37%) were discharged from hospital for their recovery from COVID-19, and 15 cases (11.63%) were deceased during the treatment, shown in Supplementary Table 1. For the characteristics of patients, we observed that the mean age of patients was significantly different among the subgroup of severity, and the mean age of patients with critical severe was significant higher than those who with severe or moderate. The distribution of patients with diabetes, chronic kidney disease and others comorbidities have significant differences among the sub-groups of disease severity. Most deceased cases (14/15) were with the critical severe COVID-19 and one with severe COVID-19. Patients who deceased have significant higher ration of comorbidities of chronic kidney disease (p=0.001), shown in Table 1.Table 1Clinical characteristics of the patients according to disease severity and the clinical outcomesClinical characteristicsSeverity of DiseaseP-valueClinical outcomeP-valueModerateSevereCritical severeDischargedDeceasedNo20733611415Age, Mean(SD),y61.90(12.89)66.59(11.49)70.92(12.32)0.02666.40±12.2472.13±11.860.090Gender, n(%)Male11(14.10)41(52.56)26(33.33)0.23567(85.90)11(14.10)0.278Female9(17.65)32(62.75)10(19.61)47(92.16)4(7.84)Hypertension, n(%)Yes5(9.09)31(56.36)19(34.55)0.13147(85.45)8(14.55)0.373No15(20.27)42(56.76)17(22.97)67(90.54)7(9.46)Cardiovascular disease, n(%)Yes4(17.39)9(39.13)10(43.48)0.13519(82.61)4(17.39)0.341No16(15.09)64(60.38)26(24.53)95(89.62)11(10.38)Diabetes, type 2, n(%)Yes5 (17.86)10 (35.71)13 (46.43)0.02623(82.14)5(17.86)0.245No15(14.85)63(62.38)23(22.77)91(90.09)10(9.90)COPD, n(%)Yes0(0)9(81.82)2(18.18)0.16311(100)0(0)0.208No20(16.95)64(54.24)34(28.81)103(87.29)15(12.71)Chronic kidney disease, n(%)Yes1(11.11)2(22.22)6(66.67)0.0255(55.56)4(44.44)0.001No19(15.83)71(59.17)30(25.00)109(90.83)11(9.17)Others, n(%)Yes1(2.78)21(58.33)14(38.89)0.02530(83.33)6(16.67)0.267No19(20.43)52(55.91)22(23.66)84 (90.32)9(9.68)Clinical outcome, n(%)Discharge20(17.54)72(63.16)22(19.30)0.000Die0(0)1(6.67)14(93.33)Tumor biomarkers, IQRCEA (ng/mL)2.39(1.20,3.82)3.48(2.26,4.95)5.03(3.09,8.58)0.0003.39(2.14,5.05)5.43(3.55,11.42)0.003CYFRA21-1(ng/mL)2.24(1.79,3.03)3.30(2.43,4.09)5.06(2.78,9.83)0.0003.14(2.35,4.05)9.72(7.32,12.08)0.000NSE (ng/mL)12.76(11.85,15.11)13.01(10.67,16.28)12.56(10.74,18.28)0.97012.40(10.86, 15.34)15.92(12.77,28.41)0.022SCC (ng/mL)0.99(0.64,1.68)1.03(0.73,1.39)2.62(1.18,4.10)0.0001.07(0.75,1.59)3.59(2.75,8.77)0.000proGRP(pg/mL)42.13(36.56,46.41)44.06(35.67,57.15)56.27(32.55,88.89)0.21944.61(36.38,61.35)34.60 (16.57,102.55)0.476 Open table in a new tab The plasma concentration of all the five biomarkers were significantly elevated in cases than those in controls (pall<0.01). In addition, the significant differences of plasma level of CEA, CYFRA21-1 and SCCA were observed among the subgroups of severity of disease and clinical outcome (Table 1) and plasma level of CEA, CYFRA21-1, SCCA were significantly increased with the advance serverity of disease. Whereas, there were no significant differences of NSE and proGRP contration amonge the different severity subgroups, shown in Supplementary Figure 1. To further analyze prognostic role of tumor biomarker in COVID-19 patients, a logistic regression was applied to measure the associations of tumor biomarkers level to risk of death. Crude OR, OR adjusted for age and gender (model 1), and OR adjusted for molel1 plus comordities (model 2) were used to assess the relative risk, respectively. The results revealed that increased level of CEA (OR=1.13, 95%CI:1.03-1.23, p=0.010; adjust model 1 OR=1.12, 95%CI: 1.02-1.23, p=0.016; adjust model 2 OR=1.12, 95%CI: 1.01-1.26, p=0.029), CYFRA21-1 (OR=1.73, 95%CI:1.35-2.21, p=0.000; adjust model 1 OR=1.673, 95%CI: 1.34-2.36, p=0.000; adjust model 2 OR=1.73, 95%CI: 1.32-2.28, p=0.000), NSE (OR=1.09, 95%CI: 1.02-1.17, p=0.016; adjust model 1 OR=1.11, 95%CI: 1.04-1.19, p=0.003; adjust model 2 OR=1.15, 95%CI: 1.05-1.27, p=0.004) and SCCA (OR=1.28, 95%CI: 1.11-1.48, p=0.016; adjust model 1 OR=1.22, 95%CI: 1.06-1.41, p= 0.007; adjust model 2 OR=1.24, 95%CI: 1.07-1.45, p= 0.006) were associated with increased risk of death, respectively, shown in Table 2.Table 2The relative risk of tumor biomarkers to deathPatientsCEACYFRA21-1NSESCCAproGRPOR(95%CI)P valueOR(95%CI)P valueOR(95%CI)P valueOR(95%CI)P valueOR(95%CI)P valueDischargedreferencereferencereferencereferencereferenceDeceased1.13(1.03,1.23)0.0101.73(1.35,2.21)0.0001.09(1.02,1.17)0.0161.28(1.11,1.48)0.0011.01(0.99,1.02)0.417Model11.12(1.02,1.23)0.0161.73(1.34,2.36)0.0001.11(1.04,1.19)0.0031.27(1.09,1.48)0.0021.00(0.99,1.02)0.832Model21.12(1.01,1.26)0.0291.73(1.32,2.28)0.0001.15(1.05,1.27)0.0041.24(1.07,1.45)0.0061.00(0.98,1.01)0.601Model1, adjusted for age and gender; Model2, adjusted for model1 plus comorbidities. Open table in a new tab Model1, adjusted for age and gender; Model2, adjusted for model1 plus comorbidities. The ROC curve revealed that SCCA (AUC: 0.937, p=0.000, cut-off: 2.57 ng/ml), CYFRA21-1(AUC: 0.882, p=0.000, cut-off: 7.29 ng/ml) and CEA (AUC: 0.737, p=0.003, cut-off: 8.55 ng/ml) could predicte the clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients, shown in Figure 2. The correlation of biomarkers dynamics and patient outcome was also evaluated with 22 discharged and 11 deceased patients, and the result revealed that the increased concentration of CYFRA21-1, SCCA and NSE were the risk of death (Supplementary Table 2), indicating that dynamic monitor for the three biomarkers could predict the clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients. This study revealed that age, diabetes, chronic kidney disease and other diseases were associated with the severity of COVID-19 patients. In which, chronic kidney disease was also regarded as a risk of death of COVID-19 patients, which was consistent the result of publised data.7Cheng Y. Luo R. Wang K. Zhang M. Wang Z. Dong L. et al.Kidney disease is associated with in-hospital death of patients with COVID-19.Kidney international. 2020; 97: 829-838Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (1932) Google Scholar Acutally, the most common cause of death in COVID-19 patients is viral pneumonia leading to inflammatory response results in the progression to multi-organ failure. Therefore, those patients have history of diabetes, chronic kidney disease were more susceptiable to develop multi-organ failure and lead to death. Tumor biomarkers related lung cancer that CEA, CYFRA21-1, NSE, SCCA, ProGRP were previously reported to be elevated in the pneumonia patients5Yang Q. Zhang P. Wu R. Lu K. Zhou H. Identifying the Best Marker Combination in CEA, CA125, CY211, NSE, and SCC for Lung Cancer Screening by Combining ROC Curve and Logistic Regression Analyses: Is It Feasible?.Disease markers. 2018; 20182082840Crossref PubMed Scopus (81) Google Scholar or benign lung diseases.6Bubanovic G. Pavicevic R. Franjevic A. Determining the cut-off value of pro-gastrin releasing peptide (ProGRP) in lung cancer according to population characteristics.Collegium antropologicum. 2008; 32: 1155-1164PubMed Google Scholar,8Fahim A. Crooks M.G. Wilmot R. Campbell A.P. Morice A.H. Hart S.P. Serum carcinoembryonic antigen correlates with severity of idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis.Respirology. 2012; 17: 1247-1252Crossref PubMed Scopus (33) Google Scholar In this study, we observed that all five tumor biomarkers were significantly increased in the plasma of COVID-19 patients than those in health controls, that CEA, CYFRA21-1 and SCCA were significantly different among the subgroups of severity of disease and clinical outcome, and that CEA, CYFRA21-1, SCCA could predicte the clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients. This study firstly reported the role of tumor biomarkers in COVID-19 patients. In short, we concluded that the concentrations of tumor biomarkers of CEA, CYFRA21-1, NSE, SCCA, ProGRP were elevated in COVID-19 patients, and that CEA, CYFRA21-1, SCCA could predicte the clinical outcome of COVID-19 patients. The authors declare no competing interests We thank Dr. Qiwen Deng (Nanjing First Hospital, Nanjing Medical University) for his help in analyzing data. We thank all the patients who consented to donate their data for analysis and all the medical staff members of Huoshengshan hospital. We would also thank the editor and peer reviewers for their hard work for this article. This study was financially supported by grants Key Foundation of Wuhan Huoshenshan Hospital (2020[18]) , Key Research& Development Program of Jiangsu Province(BE2018713), Medical Innovation Project of Logistics Service(18JS005) Download .docx (1.97 MB) Help with docx files

Clinical Utility of the Treatment Eligibility Score HEPSANET for Chronic Hepatitis B in Asia

The Diagnostic Value of the Fib-4 Index for Staging Hepatitis B-Related Fibrosis: A Meta-Analysis

Development and evaluation of a simple treatment eligibility score (HEPSANET) to decentralise hepatitis B care in Africa: a cross-sectional study

A Novel and Simplified Score for Determining Treatment Eligibility for Patients with Chronic Hepatitis B

Treatment Eligibility Rate According to WHO 2024 Hepatitis B Guidelines

Use of Serum Golgi Protein 73 for Screening Chronic Hepatitis B Virus Infection Patients Needing Antiviral Therapy in the Community

Serum alkaline phosphatase levels as a simple and useful test in screening for significant fibrosis in treatment-naive patients with hepatitis B e-antigen negative chronic hepatitis B.

Prognostic Nomogram for Patients with Hepatitis E Virus-related Acute Liver Failure: A Multicenter Study in China

Development and validation of a new prognostic score for hepatitis B virus-related acute-on-chronic liver failure

PCOSt: A Non-Invasive and Cost-Effective Screening Tool for Polycystic Ovary Syndrome

Interobserver Variability in Grading Acute Rejection after Lung Transplantation

External validation of hepatocellular carcinoma risk scores in patients with chronic hepatitis B virus infection in China

Noninvasive diagnosis of significant liver inflammation in patients with chronic hepatitis B in the indeterminate phase

External validation of the modified PAGE‐B score in Asian chronic hepatitis B patients receiving antiviral therapy

Tumor Biomarkers Predict Clinical Outcome of COVID-19 Patients.

Non-invasive Diagnostic Indicators and Antiviral Treatment Efficacy in CHB Patients with Different Liver Histopathological Degrees

Clinical Noninvasive Markers for Antiviral Therapy Decision in Chronic Hepatitis B with Alanine Aminotransferase Less Than Two Times Upper Limit of Normal.

Construction and validation of a machine learning-based nomogram to predict the prognosis of HBV associated hepatocellular carcinoma patients with high levels of hepatitis B surface antigen in primary local treatment: a multicenter study

Risk scores to predict HCC and the benefits of antiviral therapy for CHB patients in gray zone of treatment guidelines

Liver fibrosis stage based on the four factors (FIB-4) score or Forns index in adults with chronic hepatitis C

Development and Validation of a Novel Prognostic Nomogram for Hepatitis B Virus-Related Acute-on-chronic Liver Failure Patients Receiving Artificial Liver Therapy