天津医药 ›› 2024, Vol. 52 ›› Issue (12): 1308-1312.doi: 10.11958/20241059
收稿日期:
2024-08-06
修回日期:
2024-09-23
出版日期:
2024-12-15
发布日期:
2024-12-17
作者简介:
谷巍(1981),女,主任医师,主要从事脂代谢与糖尿病并发症方面研究。E-mail:基金资助:
GU Wei(), ZHANG Huina, HOU Liping, YU Min, CHENG Lirong
Received:
2024-08-06
Revised:
2024-09-23
Published:
2024-12-15
Online:
2024-12-17
谷巍, 张惠娜, 侯丽萍, 于敏, 程黎蓉. 脂质相关指数与糖尿病肾病相关性研究[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(12): 1308-1312.
GU Wei, ZHANG Huina, HOU Liping, YU Min, CHENG Lirong. Correlation between lipid correlation index and diabetic kidney disease[J]. Tianjin Medical Journal, 2024, 52(12): 1308-1312.
摘要:
目的 通过观察脂质相关指数在不同分期糖尿病肾病(DKD)的表达来探讨其与DKD的相关性。方法 将265例2型糖尿病(T2DM)患者分为T2DM组106例和DKD组159例。根据估算肾小球滤过率(eGFR)水平将DKD组分DKD-G2组(59例)DKD-G3组(59例)、DKD-G4组(41例)。收集患者甘油三酯(TG)、总胆固醇(TC)、高密度脂蛋白胆固醇(HDL-C)、低密度脂蛋白胆固醇(LDL-C)、载脂蛋白(Apo)A、Apo B、尿白蛋白/尿肌酐比值(UACR)等,计算eGFR,计算甘油三酯-葡萄糖指数(TyG)、内脏脂肪指数(VAI)、血浆致动脉粥样硬化指数(AIP)、分析TyG、VAI、AIP不同组间差异及与eGFR、UACR的相关性;多重线性回归分析DKD肾损伤的影响因素,绘制受试者工作特征(ROC)曲线评估TyG、VAI、AIP预测效能。结果 不同分期DKD组患者TyG、VAI、AIP高于T2DM组,随病程进展,各指数呈升高趋势(P<0.05)。DKD患者的TyG、VAI、AIP与eGFR呈负相关(r分别为-0.396、-0.425、-0.519,P<0.01),与UACR呈正相关(r分别为0.482、0.479、0.583,P<0.01)。多重线性回归结果显示VAI、AIP为eGFR的影响因素,TG、HDL-C、LDL-C、Apo B、VAI、AIP为UACR的影响因素(P<0.01)。ROC曲线显示TyG、VAI、AIP曲线下面积为0.902(0.866~0.937)、0.969(0.953~0.986)、0.958(0.937~0.979)。结论 TyG、VAI、AIP与DKD进展相关,对DKD有一定预测价值,可作为DKD发生发展评估的生物学指标。
中图分类号:
组别 | n | 性别 (男/女) | 年龄/ 岁 | BMI/(kg/m2) | WC/cm | 病程/年 | TC/ (mmol/L) | TG/ (mmol/L) | HDL-C/ (mmol/L) | LDL-C/ (mmol/L) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T2DM组 | 106 | 60/46 | 53.79±12.51 | 26.94±3.18 | 90.00±9.92 | 5.58±2.72 | 4.63±0.99 | 1.68±0.37 | 1.23±0.22 | 2.73±0.85 | |||||||||
DKD-G2组 | 59 | 34/25 | 56.14±11.46 | 26.04±2.85 | 88.12±7.14 | 8.49±4.11a | 4.85±0.95 | 2.70±0.86a | 1.03±0.24a | 2.76±0.97 | |||||||||
DKD-G3组 | 59 | 28/31 | 60.39±12.87a | 26.71±4.30 | 91.49±11.55 | 14.64±7.01ab | 5.57±1.64ab | 3.76±1.43ab | 1.04±0.32a | 3.13±1.29a | |||||||||
DKD-G4组 | 41 | 25/16 | 62.05±11.10ab | 26.94±3.23 | 93.85±9.22ab | 19.80±7.21abc | 5.60±1.68ab | 4.52±1.36abc | 0.84±0.35abc | 3.10±1.17 | |||||||||
χ2或F | 1.977 | 6.443** | 0.993 | 3.137* | 95.903** | 9.996** | 108.083** | 23.136** | 2.748* | ||||||||||
组别 | FBG/ (mmol/L) | HbA1c/ % | ApoA/ (g/L) | ApoB/ (g/L) | BUN/ (mmol/L) | SCr/ (μmol/L) | UACR/ (mg/g) | ||||||||||||
T2DM组 | 8.84±2.45 | 8.13±1.64 | 1.30±0.28 | 1.07±0.33 | 6.20±5.38 | 59.39±8.28 | 22.34±5.41 | ||||||||||||
DKD-G2组 | 9.60±2.63 | 8.56±1.69 | 1.23±0.30 | 1.26±0.31a | 5.28±2.96 | 90.04±13.94a | 80.36±31.35a | ||||||||||||
DKD-G3组 | 9.02±2.49 | 8.13±1.62 | 1.04±0.28ab | 1.44±0.57a | 11.52±8.18ab | 138.51±24.37ab | 248.97±102.30ab | ||||||||||||
DKD-G4组 | 9.60±3.33 | 8.43±1.99 | 0.87±0.34abc | 1.80±1.00abc | 16.96±5.19abc | 244.73±37.20abc | 590.59±154.92abc | ||||||||||||
F | 1.507 | 1.102 | 26.210** | 19.629** | 47.234** | 872.427** | 556.260** |
表1 T2DM组和不同分期DKD组一般资料及实验室指标比较
Tab.1 Comparison of general data and laboratory indexes between different stages of the T2DM group and the DKD group
组别 | n | 性别 (男/女) | 年龄/ 岁 | BMI/(kg/m2) | WC/cm | 病程/年 | TC/ (mmol/L) | TG/ (mmol/L) | HDL-C/ (mmol/L) | LDL-C/ (mmol/L) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
T2DM组 | 106 | 60/46 | 53.79±12.51 | 26.94±3.18 | 90.00±9.92 | 5.58±2.72 | 4.63±0.99 | 1.68±0.37 | 1.23±0.22 | 2.73±0.85 | |||||||||
DKD-G2组 | 59 | 34/25 | 56.14±11.46 | 26.04±2.85 | 88.12±7.14 | 8.49±4.11a | 4.85±0.95 | 2.70±0.86a | 1.03±0.24a | 2.76±0.97 | |||||||||
DKD-G3组 | 59 | 28/31 | 60.39±12.87a | 26.71±4.30 | 91.49±11.55 | 14.64±7.01ab | 5.57±1.64ab | 3.76±1.43ab | 1.04±0.32a | 3.13±1.29a | |||||||||
DKD-G4组 | 41 | 25/16 | 62.05±11.10ab | 26.94±3.23 | 93.85±9.22ab | 19.80±7.21abc | 5.60±1.68ab | 4.52±1.36abc | 0.84±0.35abc | 3.10±1.17 | |||||||||
χ2或F | 1.977 | 6.443** | 0.993 | 3.137* | 95.903** | 9.996** | 108.083** | 23.136** | 2.748* | ||||||||||
组别 | FBG/ (mmol/L) | HbA1c/ % | ApoA/ (g/L) | ApoB/ (g/L) | BUN/ (mmol/L) | SCr/ (μmol/L) | UACR/ (mg/g) | ||||||||||||
T2DM组 | 8.84±2.45 | 8.13±1.64 | 1.30±0.28 | 1.07±0.33 | 6.20±5.38 | 59.39±8.28 | 22.34±5.41 | ||||||||||||
DKD-G2组 | 9.60±2.63 | 8.56±1.69 | 1.23±0.30 | 1.26±0.31a | 5.28±2.96 | 90.04±13.94a | 80.36±31.35a | ||||||||||||
DKD-G3组 | 9.02±2.49 | 8.13±1.62 | 1.04±0.28ab | 1.44±0.57a | 11.52±8.18ab | 138.51±24.37ab | 248.97±102.30ab | ||||||||||||
DKD-G4组 | 9.60±3.33 | 8.43±1.99 | 0.87±0.34abc | 1.80±1.00abc | 16.96±5.19abc | 244.73±37.20abc | 590.59±154.92abc | ||||||||||||
F | 1.507 | 1.102 | 26.210** | 19.629** | 47.234** | 872.427** | 556.260** |
组别 | n | TyG | VAI | AIP |
---|---|---|---|---|
T2DM组 | 106 | 9.32±0.37 | 1.85±0.71 | 0.13±0.12 |
DKD-G2组 | 59 | 9.85±0.37a | 4.46±2.42a | 0.41±0.18a |
DKD-G3组 | 59 | 10.11±0.44ab | 6.26±2.94ab | 0.55±0.19ab |
DKD-G4组 | 41 | 10.35±0.45abc | 11.26±9.98abc | 0.76±0.25abc |
F | 88.450** | 49.257** | 160.275** |
表2 T2DM与不同分期DKD患者中3个指数比较
Tab. 2 Comparison of three indices in the T2DM and DKD patients with different stages
组别 | n | TyG | VAI | AIP |
---|---|---|---|---|
T2DM组 | 106 | 9.32±0.37 | 1.85±0.71 | 0.13±0.12 |
DKD-G2组 | 59 | 9.85±0.37a | 4.46±2.42a | 0.41±0.18a |
DKD-G3组 | 59 | 10.11±0.44ab | 6.26±2.94ab | 0.55±0.19ab |
DKD-G4组 | 41 | 10.35±0.45abc | 11.26±9.98abc | 0.76±0.25abc |
F | 88.450** | 49.257** | 160.275** |
指标 | TyG | VAI | AIP |
---|---|---|---|
eGFR | -0.396** | -0.425** | -0.519** |
UACR | 0.482** | 0.479** | 0.583** |
表3 肾损伤指标eGFR、UACR与3个指数相关性分析 (r)
Tab.3 Correlation analysis of kidney injury indexes of eGFR, UACR and other three indexes
指标 | TyG | VAI | AIP |
---|---|---|---|
eGFR | -0.396** | -0.425** | -0.519** |
UACR | 0.482** | 0.479** | 0.583** |
B | SE | β | t | P | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | |||||
VAI | 0.612 | 0.269 | 0.099 | 2.272 | 0.024 |
AIP | -42.226 | 15.003 | -0.369 | -2.815 | 0.005 |
常数项 | 183.104 | 33.641 | 5.443 | <0.001 | |
模型2 | |||||
HDL-C | -42.397 | 9.910 | -0.391 | -4.278 | <0.001 |
LDL-C | -5.723 | 2.711 | -0.181 | -2.111 | 0.036 |
Apo A | 13.370 | 5.056 | 0.134 | 2.644 | 0.009 |
AIP | -130.197 | 19.699 | -1.137 | -6.609 | <0.001 |
常数项 | 150.076 | 35.664 | 4.210 | <0.001 |
表4 多重线性回归分析评估eGFR独立影响因素
Tab. 4 Independent influencing factors for eGFR assessed by multiple linear regression analysis
B | SE | β | t | P | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | |||||
VAI | 0.612 | 0.269 | 0.099 | 2.272 | 0.024 |
AIP | -42.226 | 15.003 | -0.369 | -2.815 | 0.005 |
常数项 | 183.104 | 33.641 | 5.443 | <0.001 | |
模型2 | |||||
HDL-C | -42.397 | 9.910 | -0.391 | -4.278 | <0.001 |
LDL-C | -5.723 | 2.711 | -0.181 | -2.111 | 0.036 |
Apo A | 13.370 | 5.056 | 0.134 | 2.644 | 0.009 |
AIP | -130.197 | 19.699 | -1.137 | -6.609 | <0.001 |
常数项 | 150.076 | 35.664 | 4.210 | <0.001 |
指标 | B | SE | β | t | P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | |||||
TG | 37.592 | 10.717 | 0.256 | 3.508 | 0.001 |
HDL-C | -97.406 | 46.229 | -0.139 | -2.107 | 0.036 |
LDL-C | -25.363 | 11.401 | -0.125 | -2.225 | 0.027 |
Apo B | 43.403 | 12.488 | 0.121 | 3.476 | 0.001 |
VAI | 5.557 | 1.772 | 0.140 | 3.137 | 0.002 |
AIP | -264.682 | 98.635 | -0.359 | -2.683 | 0.008 |
常数项 | -217.437 | 221.171 | -0.983 | 0.326 | |
模型2 | |||||
Apo A | -76.070 | 35.299 | -0.119 | -2.155 | 0.032 |
Apo B | 50.572 | 20.967 | 0.141 | 2.412 | 0.017 |
AIP | 311.481 | 137.520 | 0.422 | 2.265 | 0.024 |
常数项 | -200.246 | 248.831 | -0.805 | 0.422 |
表5 多重线性回归分析评估UACR独立影响因素
Tab.5 Independent risk factors for UACR assessed by multiple linear regression analysis
指标 | B | SE | β | t | P |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
模型1 | |||||
TG | 37.592 | 10.717 | 0.256 | 3.508 | 0.001 |
HDL-C | -97.406 | 46.229 | -0.139 | -2.107 | 0.036 |
LDL-C | -25.363 | 11.401 | -0.125 | -2.225 | 0.027 |
Apo B | 43.403 | 12.488 | 0.121 | 3.476 | 0.001 |
VAI | 5.557 | 1.772 | 0.140 | 3.137 | 0.002 |
AIP | -264.682 | 98.635 | -0.359 | -2.683 | 0.008 |
常数项 | -217.437 | 221.171 | -0.983 | 0.326 | |
模型2 | |||||
Apo A | -76.070 | 35.299 | -0.119 | -2.155 | 0.032 |
Apo B | 50.572 | 20.967 | 0.141 | 2.412 | 0.017 |
AIP | 311.481 | 137.520 | 0.422 | 2.265 | 0.024 |
常数项 | -200.246 | 248.831 | -0.805 | 0.422 |
指标 | 敏感度 | 特异度 | 约登指数 | AUC | 95% CI | 最佳临界值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TyG | 0.824 | 0.858 | 0.682 | 0.902 | 0.866~0.937 | 9.679 |
VAI | 0.925 | 0.906 | 0.830 | 0.969 | 0.953~0.986 | 2.701 |
AIP | 0.874 | 0.934 | 0.808 | 0.958 | 0.937~0.979 | 0.314 |
联合 | 0.906 | 0.934 | 0.840 | 0.973 | 0.941~0.984 | - |
表6 TyG、VAI、AIP及三者联合对DKD的预测价值
Tab.6 The predictive value of TyG, VAI and AIP and their combination on DKD
指标 | 敏感度 | 特异度 | 约登指数 | AUC | 95% CI | 最佳临界值 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
TyG | 0.824 | 0.858 | 0.682 | 0.902 | 0.866~0.937 | 9.679 |
VAI | 0.925 | 0.906 | 0.830 | 0.969 | 0.953~0.986 | 2.701 |
AIP | 0.874 | 0.934 | 0.808 | 0.958 | 0.937~0.979 | 0.314 |
联合 | 0.906 | 0.934 | 0.840 | 0.973 | 0.941~0.984 | - |
[1] | American Diabetes Association Professional Practice Committee. Classification and diagnosis of diabetes: standards of medical care in diabetes-2022[J]. Diabetes Care, 2022, 45(Suppl 1):S17-S38. doi:10.2337/dc22-S002. |
[2] | SUH S H, KIM S W. Dyslipidemia in patients with chronic kidney disease: an updated overview[J]. Diabetes Metab J, 2023, 47(5):612-629. doi:10.4093/dmj.2023.0067. |
[3] | KIM T B, AHN S Y, OH J, et al. The impact of obesity on kidney disease: observational cohort study analyzing 14,492 kidney biopsy cases[J]. J Korean Med Sci, 2024, 39(3):e12. doi:10.3346/jkms.2024.39.e12. |
[4] | YOON H, SHAW J L, HAIGIS M C, et al. Lipid metabolism in sickness and in health:Emerging regulators of lipotoxicity[J]. Mol Cell, 2021, 81(18):3708-3730. doi:10.1016/j.molcel.2021.08.027. |
[5] | 司月乔, 范文俊, 高秀鑫, 等. TyG指数与稳定性冠心病及冠状动脉钙化斑块负荷的相关性[J]. 天津医药, 2020, 48(9):875-880. |
SI Y Q, FAN W J, GAO X X, et al. Correlation of TyG index with stable coronary heart disease and calcified plaque load in coronary arteries[J]. Tianjin Med J, 2020, 48(9):875-880. doi:10.11958/20200623. | |
[6] | HE Q, LIU S, FENG Z, et al. Association between the visceral adiposity index and risks of all-cause and cause-specific mortalities in a large cohort: findings from the UK biobank[J]. Nutr Metab Cardiovasc Dis, 2022, 32(9):2204-2215. doi:10.1016/j.numecd.2022.05.020. |
[7] | FERNÁNDEZ-MACÍAS J C, OCHOA-MARTÍNEZ A C, VARELA-SILVA J A, et al. Atherogenic index of plasma:novel predictive biomarker for cardiovascular illnesses[J]. Arch Med Res, 2019, 50(5):285-294. doi:10.1016/j.arcmed.2019.08.009. |
[8] | 中华医学会糖尿病学分会. 中国2型糖尿病防治指南(2020年版)[J]. 中华糖尿病杂志, 2021, 13(4):315-409. |
Diabetes Society, Chinese Medical Association. Chinese guidelines for the prevention and treatment of type 2 diabetes(2020 edition)[J]. Chinese Journal of Diabetes, 2021, 13(4):315-409. doi:10.19538/j.nk2021080106. | |
[9] | 中华医学会糖尿病学分会微血管并发症学组. 中国糖尿病肾脏病防治指南(2021年版)[J]. 中华糖尿病杂志, 2021, 13(8):762-784. |
Microvascular Complications Group, Diabetes Society, Chinese Medical Association. Chinese guidelines for prevention and treatment of diabetic kidney disease(2021 edition)[J]. Chinese Journal of Diabetes, 2021, 13(8):762-784. doi:10.3760/cma.j.cn115791-20210706-00369. doi:. | |
[10] | CHENG H T, XU X, LIM P S, et al. Worldwide epidemiology of diabetes-related end-stage renal disease,2000-2015[J]. Diabetes Care, 2021, 44(1):89-97. doi:10.2337/dc20-1913. |
[11] | ZHANG X X, KONG J, YUN K. Prevalence of diabetic nephropathy among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus in china: a meta-analysis of observational studies[J]. J Diabetes Res, 2020, 2020:2315607. doi:10.1155/2020/2315607. |
[12] | ZHANG J, WU Y, ZHANG J, et al. ABCA1 deficiency-mediated glomerular cholesterol accumulation exacerbates glomerular endothelial injury and dysfunction in diabetic kidney disease[J]. Metabolism, 2023, 139:155377. doi:10.1016/j.metabol.2022.155377. |
[13] | GU W, WANG X, ZHAO H F, et al. Resveratrol ameliorates diabetic kidney injury by reducing lipotoxicity and modulates expression of components of the junctional adhesion molecule-like/sirtuin 1 lipid metabolism pathway[J]. Eur J Pharmacol, 2022, 918:174776. doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2022.174776. |
[14] | SIMENTAL-MENDÍA L E, RODRÍGUEZ-MORÁN M, GUERRERO-ROMERO F. The product of fasting glucose and triglycerides as surrogate for identifying insulin resistance in apparently healthy subjects[J]. Metab Syndr Relat Disord, 2008, 6(4):299-304. doi:10.1089/met.2008.0034. |
[15] | KHAN S H, SOBIA F, NIAZI N K, et al. Metabolic clustering of risk factors:evaluation of triglyceride-glucose index (TyG index) for evaluation of insulin resistance[J]. Diabetol Metab Syndr, 2018, 10:74. doi:10.1186/s13098-018-0376-8. |
[16] | SRINIVASAN S, SINGH P, KULOTHUNGAN V, et al. Relationship between triglyceride glucose index,retinopathy and nephropathy in Type 2 diabetes[J]. Endocrinol Diabetes Metab, 2021, 4(1):e00151. doi:10.1002/edm2.151. |
[17] | PAN Y, ZHONG S, ZHOU K, et al. Association between diabetes complications and the triglyceride-glucose index in hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes[J]. J Diabetes Res, 2021, 2021:8757996. doi:10.1155/2021/8757996. |
[18] | 李隽, 张莹, 倪会芳, 等. 甘油三酯-葡萄糖指数与2型糖尿病肾病的相关性[J]. 河南医学研究, 2021, 30(2):216-219. |
LI J, ZHANG Y, NI H F, et al. The correlation between triglyceride-glucose index and type 2 diabetic nephropathy[J]. Henan Medical Research, 2021, 30(2):216-219. doi:10.3969/j.issn.1004-437X.2021.02.007. | |
[19] | LV L, ZHOU Y, CHEN X, et al. Relationship between the TyG index and diabetic kidney disease in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus[J]. Diabetes Metab Syndr Obes, 2021, 14:3299-3306. doi:10.2147/DMSO.S318255. |
[20] | PETTA S, AMATO M, CABIBI D, et al. Visceral adiposity index is associated with histological findings and high viral load in patients with chronic hepatitis C due to genotype 1[J]. Hepatology, 2010, 52(5):1543-1552. doi:10.1002/hep.23859. |
[21] | AMATO M C, GIORDANO C, GALIA M, et al. Visceral adiposity index: a reliable indicator of visceral fat function associated with cardiometabolic risk[J]. Diabetes Care, 2010, 33(4):920-922. doi:10.2337/dc09-1825. |
[22] | 田江宣, 徐燕娉, 官常荣, 等. 中国内脏肥胖指数与健康体检者肾功能下降的关系分析[J]. 浙江医学, 2022, 44(13):1427-1429. |
TIAN J X, XU Y P, GUAN C R, et al. Analysis of the relationship between visceral obesity index and renal function decline in healthy subjects in China[J]. Zhejiang Medical Journal, 2022, 44(13):1427-1429. doi:10.12056/j.issn.1006-2785.2022.44.13.2021-2606. | |
[23] | WEN J, YUAN H. Independent association between the visceral adiposity index and microalbuminuria in patients with newly diagnosed type 2 diabetes[J]. Diabetes Metab Res Rev, 2020, 36(1):e3198. doi:10.1002/dmrr.3198. |
[24] | ZHOU C, ZHANG Y, YANG S, et al. Associations between visceral adiposity index and incident nephropathy outcomes in diabetic patients: Insights from the ACCORD trial[J]. Diabetes Metab Res Rev, 2023, 39(3):e3602. doi:10.1002/dmrr.3602. |
[25] | DOBIÁSOVÁ M, RASLOVÁ K, RAUCHOVÁ H, et al. Atherogenic lipoprotein profile in families with and without history of early myocardial infarction[J]. Physiol Res, 2001, 50(1):1-8. |
[26] | NEELAM K, AUNG K, ANG K, et al. Association of triglyceride glucose index with prevalence and incidence of diabetic retinopathy in a singaporean population[J]. Clin Ophthalmol, 2023, 17:445-454. doi:10.2147/OPTH.S382336. |
[27] | XU J, ZHOU H, XIANG G. Association of atherogenic index of plasma with retinopathy and nephropathy in adult patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus aged > 18 years[J]. Can J Diabetes, 2022:S1499- 2671(22)00092-00092. doi:10.1016/j.jcjd.2022.04.008. |
[1] | 王远珍, 魏红艳, 常丽仙, 张映媛, 刘春云, 刘立. 原发性肝癌干预前并发肺部感染风险预测模型的建立与验证[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(9): 940-945. |
[2] | 范哲华, 刘建荣. 葡萄糖依赖性促胰岛素多肽与多囊卵巢综合征相关性的研究进展[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(9): 996-999. |
[3] | 王磊, 孟坤, 王兵. 支气管肺炎患儿反复喘息的影响因素分析及预测模型构建[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(8): 850-853. |
[4] | 侯维玲, 乔云阳, 吴小芸, 施会敏, 曲高婷, 张爱青. 锌指蛋白281抑制高糖诱导的肾小管上皮细胞上皮间质转化和细胞外基质合成[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(7): 720-726. |
[5] | 薛玉恒, 茆宁, 刘文强, 杨倩倩, 徐艳, 王军. 基于早期血小板相关参数的支气管肺发育不良风险预测模型的构建与验证[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(7): 748-754. |
[6] | 王敏, 王龙胜, 陈磊. 骨质疏松症患者腰椎骨折预测模型的构建[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(7): 766-769. |
[7] | 王娴, 刘霞明, 陈曼玉, 赵君, 王立东. 基于机器学习对2型糖尿病肾病预测模型的构建及验证[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(7): 775-780. |
[8] | 夏雨薇, 乔云阳, 刘雪薇, 施会敏, 曲高婷, 张爱青, 甘卫华. tRF-1:30对高糖诱导的肾小管上皮细胞炎性因子表达的影响[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(6): 561-566. |
[9] | 韩琴, 韩秀丽, 陈伟然. 老年脑卒中患者康复治疗后抑郁障碍的影响因素分析[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(6): 639-642. |
[10] | 郑康鹏, 唐鑫国, 徐琦, 樊钰亭, 梁博, 付晓伟, 方路. 胆囊癌根治手术成功实施列线图预测模型的建立和验证[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(5): 536-540. |
[11] | 徐杨, 袁宇, 高金妹. 超声检查对骨折患者下肢深静脉漂浮血栓脱落的诊断意义[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(5): 548-551. |
[12] | 冯李婷, 李莉, 谢鑫, 王星. 天津地区部分居民慢性阻塞性肺疾病影响因素分析[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(4): 427-431. |
[13] | 天津市医学会神经外科学分会. 颅外段颈部动脉粥样硬化性疾病外科治疗京津冀专家共识[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(3): 225-230. |
[14] | 纪晓娟, 韩浩, 张丽侠. 急性髓系白血病合并血流感染的病原菌分布与耐药性变迁及患者死亡的危险因素分析[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(2): 167-171. |
[15] | 张贵婷, 何超. oxLDL/β2GPⅠ/aβ2GPⅠ复合物通过TLR4/MyD88/NF-κB途径促进血管内皮细胞血管生成[J]. 天津医药, 2024, 52(11): 1131-1136. |
阅读次数 | ||||||
全文 |
|
|||||
摘要 |
|
|||||