Public Health Genomics最新文献

{"title":"Public Perspectives on Sharing Profits with Biospecimen Donors.","authors":"Aaron Eli Segal, Xiaobai Li, David Wendler","doi":"10.1159/000549697","DOIUrl":"10.1159/000549697","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In current practice, individuals rarely share in the profits of research using their biospecimens. Many commentators defend this practice on the grounds that the contributions donors make are not important enough to merit a share of the profits. Others argue that if researchers and sponsors profit, donors should too. Despite the importance of this debate, there are no data on the public's views.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Online survey of US adults selected to approximate the 2020 US census on age, gender, race, ethnicity, and geographic region. Respondents were asked whether biospecimen donors should share in the profits or receive payments across six scenarios, differing on whether the research yields a profit and which other parties share in the profits.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 77.2% of respondents indicated that donors should share in the profits when researchers profit and 78.9% when sponsors profit. Support for profit sharing was strong across all groups assessed, although respondents who were older, white, and wealthier were less likely to think donors should share in the profits.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>A significant majority of a sample of the US public thinks individuals who donate their biospecimens should share in the profits of research that uses their samples. These findings offer compelling reason to reconsider current practice of not sharing profits with biospecimen donors.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"10-20"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12833704/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145967603","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Health Literacy and Awareness of Family Health History in the All of Us Research Program.","authors":"Jemar R Bather, Melody S Goodman, Stephanie H Cook, Kimberly A Kaphingst","doi":"10.1159/000550532","DOIUrl":"10.1159/000550532","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>A 2016 study showed that limited health literacy was associated with lower awareness of family health history. However, this analysis was conducted among adult patients in St. Louis, Missouri, thereby warranting broader replication.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We quantified the association between health literacy and awareness of family health history using a nationwide cross-sectional study of 286,293 All of Us Research Program participants. Modified Poisson regression models estimated PRs (PRs): model 1 (unadjusted), model 2 (demographic factors), model 3 (socioeconomic status), model 4 (health insurance), model 5 (self-rated health status), and model 6 (number of chronic health conditions).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The average age was 53 years (SD = 17), with 4% who self-reported no awareness of family health history and 17% who had limited health literacy. Without controlling for confounders (model 1), participants with limited health literacy were 3.06 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 2.95-3.17) times more likely than those with adequate health literacy to report no awareness of family health history. This significant association persisted but attenuated in models 2 (adjusted PR [aPR]: 2.04, 95% CI: 1.96-2.12) and 3 (aPR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.37-1.49). The association remained stable in models 4-6 with the sequential addition of health insurance coverage (aPR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.37-1.48), self-rated health status (aPR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.36-1.47), and number of chronic health conditions (aPR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.36-1.48).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>These findings indicate that increasing health literacy may increase awareness of family health history, which is vital for delivery of personalized healthcare and active patient participation in precision medicine.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"1-9"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2026-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12923247/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146004776","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Achieving the Vision of Genomics to Improve Health for All Requires a Focus on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion.","authors":"Muin J Khoury, Colleen M McBride, Martina C Cornel","doi":"10.1159/000547309","DOIUrl":"10.1159/000547309","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>None.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"1-5"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-07-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12503668/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144734939","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Exploring Dutch citizens' perspectives, expectations, and decision-making regarding health-related direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT).","authors":"Danny Bruins, Suzanne M Onstwedder, Martina C Cornel, Marc H W van Mil, Margreet G E M Ausems, Olga C Damman, Tessel Rigter","doi":"10.1159/000547527","DOIUrl":"10.1159/000547527","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Qualitative insights into European citizens' beliefs, expectations, attitudes, and factors relevant for decision-making regarding health-related direct-to-consumer genetic testing (DTC-GT) are scarce. Assessment thereof is essential to eventually empower them for informed decision-making and responsible use regarding DTC-GT. Materials &amp; Methods: Twenty semi-structured, in-person interviews were conducted with a cohort of socio-demographically diverse Dutch citizens. During the interview, participants viewed an informative video regarding DTC-GT to ensure baseline knowledge, and hypothetical company materials, including an estimated disease risk, to assess the reactions of citizens to such materials. Interviews were transcribed verbatim and thematically analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants were generally unaware of health-related DTC-GT prior to the interview invite. Participants expressed sizeable expectations across the entire DTC-GT consumer journey, and demonstrated several recurring misconceptions. Participants also indicated distrust towards DTC-GT sellers and their practices, and expressed dissatisfaction concerning the hypothetical results they received. Most participants indicated they would not be willing to undergo DTC-GT, but provided argumentation and weight of each argument were unique to each participant, indicating unique decision-making processes. Price was an important modifying factor in participants' decision-making. Participants suggested information provision by independent parties, development of quality marks, and implementation of enforceable regulation and legislation to support their decision-making.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants' expectations regarding health-related DTC-GT and towards DTC-GT sellers appear sizeable, and decision-making very personal. Stimulating informed decision-making through enhancement of information provision, (social) media campaigns, education, development of quality marks, and implementation of enforceable regulation and legislation, could aid in empowering citizens for responsible use of DTC-GT.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"1-36"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12503568/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144692200","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Modern Family: An Ethical Justification for System-Led Contact of Relatives Eligible for Cascade Screening in the United States.","authors":"Katherine E Bonini, Hadley Stevens Smith, Emily S Bonkowski, Benjamin E Berkman, Leila Jamal","doi":"10.1159/000541301","DOIUrl":"10.1159/000541301","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Though genomic science has rapidly advanced, efforts to demonstrate the population-level utility of genomics have been slow to follow. It has long been argued that the family is an important unit of significance in genomics, yet it has been challenging to address this in clinical care. This is apparent in how hospital administrators and clinicians in the United States typically approach cascade screening, the process of notifying and offering genetic testing to at-risk relatives of a patient with a hereditary condition. The most common notification approach is proband-led contact, in which the index patient is responsible for communicating a health risk to their relatives. This model has been associated with suboptimal outcomes. In contrast, recent research has shown that system-led contact, in which healthcare or public health institutions initiate communication to relatives with the proband's consent, has been associated with increased clinical utility and acceptability.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>With the needs of hospital administrators and clinicians in mind, we revisit normative questions about the appropriate way to notify relatives about their potentially elevated risk of developing an actionable disease. We review evidence demonstrating that system-led direct contact of relatives is feasible and acceptable. We further argue that system-led contact of relatives eligible for cascade screening is ethically justified if these programs are designed with public input, have an opt-out provision, and are implemented for conditions that meet specific criteria which we propose in this article.</p><p><strong>Key messages: </strong>In this article, we emphasize the usefulness of public health ethics frameworks to inform the design of system-led contact programs. Beyond this, we make the case that such programs are necessary to realize the population utility of genomic medicine equitably.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"19-33"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142631462","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Democratizing Education for Sickle Cell Disease Gene Therapy: A Community-Based Model for Creating Patient Education Materials.","authors":"Vence L Bonham, Kiana Amini, Ashley J Buscetta, Diba Seddighi, Hasmin C Ramirez, Rachele Willard, Kimberly A Kaphingst","doi":"10.1159/000548133","DOIUrl":"10.1159/000548133","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Deliberative democracy is an inclusionary approach to reaching consensus decision-making through participative and representative engagement. The Democratizing Education for Sickle Cell Disease Gene Therapy Project used a deliberative community engagement model to partner with patient advocacy and research community members within the field of sickle cell disease (SCD) gene therapy to create new, accessible patient education materials (PEMs) about SCD gene therapy.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The objective of this study was to develop PEMs for SCD gene therapy and study the process of deliberative community engaged research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A study of the experiences of a multi-disciplinary group of participants including patients, patient advocates, health professionals, gene therapy researchers, industry and government members using a deliberative community engagement model to develop new PEMs. Multiple types of data were collected including survey data (three-time points), video and audio recordings of deliberations, and focus groups. Mixed-methods analysis was used to evaluate the experience of participating in the deliberative community engagement approach.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The experiences and views of participants reveal both the strengths and challenges of using the deliberative community engagement model to involve participants of diverse backgrounds, life experiences, and expertise. Project participants identified four key focus areas for PEM development: (1) types of gene therapy and alternative curative approaches, (2) social context of gene therapies, (3) impact on medical treatment (risks and benefits), and (4) participation in gene therapy clinical trials. The findings from this project provide key insights on the strengths and challenges of a deliberative community engagement model that will be increasingly relevant as the field of gene therapy grows globally.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"292-300"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145034520","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Progress and Criteria in Public Health Applications of Gene Therapy and Gene Editing: Beyond the White Paper.","authors":"Stephen M Modell, Jennifer A Smith, Sharon L R Kardia","doi":"10.1159/000546850","DOIUrl":"10.1159/000546850","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In 2023, the FDA approved two gene therapies for sickle cell disease (SCD), one of which follows a standard gene therapy protocol and the other a gene editing (CRISPR/Cas9) approach. Other gene therapy protocols for conditions relating to public health continue to advance and are being discussed in academic and professional circles. This review examines the pace of public health-related gene therapy and gene editing development since the publication of a key British white paper dealing with the pace of fruition in this field.</p><p><strong>Summary: </strong>Gene therapy developments related to public health fit into three overarching baskets: (1) gene therapy and editing for rare, single-gene disorders (e.g., homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia and hereditary amyloidosis polyneuropathy); (2) gene therapy and editing for high prevalence conditions (e.g., SCD); and (3) genetic engineering and gene editing of mosquitoes transmitting tropical disease. While the protocols listed in this purposive inspection largely center around phase III (comparing treatments), with several in phase II (establishing efficacy) and phase I (assessing safety), costs of actual administration can span USD 2.1 to 3.1 million. By comparison, conventional SCD treatment runs between USD 22,500 and USD 200,000 per year for its most severe forms. Expert and public buy-in of gene editing of mosquitoes to reduce tropical disease and for human germline gene editing contain many caveats, with public health serving a useful monitoring and filtering role for how a technology might be deemed permissible.</p><p><strong>Key messages: </strong>Gene therapy has advanced beyond the stage where possible consequences serve as an automatic barrier to mainstream use, moving it closer to British white paper objectives. Ethical and feasible adoption by public health, taking into account population needs, will most likely happen through a combination Medicaid and Medicare, as opposed to the system governing newborn screening, under arrangements similar to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services' coverage under evidence development program. Vector gene drives to alleviate tropical disease should remain privately financed, with this type of financing also being used for the vast majority of gene therapies entering the market. Though the criteria for germline applications continue to evolve, in the end such applications do not serve public health purposes. Academic public health has a monitoring role to play as relevant gene therapy and gene editing trials evolve; public health practice a referral and field monitoring role in the T3 (implementation) and T4 (population outcomes) translational research phases for the few applications that could justifiably receive public funding and public health support.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"241-251"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144327527","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Workplace Genomic Testing: What Do Company Websites Say about Federal Privacy and Anti-Discrimination Laws?","authors":"Betty Cohn, Anya E R Prince, Katherine Callahan, J Scott Roberts, Alyx Vogle, Debra J H Mathews","doi":"10.1159/000546189","DOIUrl":"10.1159/000546189","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Employees considering participation in workplace genetic and/or genomic testing (wGT) as part of workplace wellness programs should be aware of legal protections of their personal genetic information. Given the relevance of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) for informed decision-making, employers offering wGT should ideally inform employees of these health policies prior to collecting any genetic data. It is unclear, however, whether and to what extent such information is being provided. Company websites provide one important resource for making employees - and the public at large - aware of important health policies governing workplace wellness programs in general, and wGT services in particular.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We systematically reviewed the websites of 420 companies (including 140 privately held companies from the 2019 Forbes list of largest privately held companies, 140 publicly held companies from the 2019 Forbes list of largest publicly held companies, 104 hospitals/hospital systems, and 36 companies that had evidence that they offer/have offered wGT) offering wGT services to determine if they included reference to HIPAA and GINA.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our search for wGT programs on company websites found that 50 of 420 companies had evidence of offering wGT. We found 32/50 (64%) mentions of HIPAA and no mentions of GINA.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>It is imperative that HIPAA and GINA are upheld by both vendors and employers. Accessible and understandable information on these policies is needed for employees to analyze the benefits and risks of participating in wGT.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"190-195"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12776532/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144045863","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Evaluating the Implementation of the Rapid Prenatal Exome Sequencing Service in England.","authors":"Holly Walton, Morgan Daniel, Michelle Peter, Hannah McInnes-Dean, Rhiannon Mellis, Stephanie Allen, Naomi J Fulop, Lyn S Chitty, Melissa Hill","doi":"10.1159/000543104","DOIUrl":"10.1159/000543104","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>In October 2020, a national rapid prenatal exome sequencing (pES) service was rolled out across the English National Health Service (NHS). This service is delivered by multiple clinical and two laboratory teams. While there was high level national guidance to support implementation, it was unclear how the service had been delivered in practice. This study evaluated pES service implementation across England, using the major system change (MSC) framework to explore links between implementation approaches and outcomes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a national mixed-methods multi-site study of 17 clinical genomics services, their linked fetal medicine services and two laboratories delivering the pES service. The MSC framework informed the study. Key documents, semi-structured interviews (eight national service developers, 55 staff), and surveys (n = 159 staff) were analysed using inductive and deductive thematic analysis and descriptive statistics. Findings were integrated.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Implementation was influenced by a range of factors including evidence of benefit, laboratory service reconfiguration, and stakeholder support. Local implementation approaches varied; seven models of service delivery were identified. Key differences between models included leadership, staffing, and multidisciplinary team approaches. Local staff factors (e.g., time, capacity, attitudes), pES service factors (e.g., communication/collaboration, logistics), and organisational factors (e.g., infrastructure and previous experience) influenced implementation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We have identified multiple barriers and facilitators that are associated with implementing a major change to genomic services in a complex national healthcare system. This study highlights which models of pES may work in practice and why. Findings will inform future development of the pES service.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"34-52"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142819733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Facilitating Equitable Access to Genomic Testing for Advanced Cancer: A Combined Intuition and Theory-Informed Approach to Intervention Development and Deployment.","authors":"Rona Weerasuriya, Joseph Elias, Melissa Martyn, Sophie O'Haire, Clara Gaff, Kortnye Smith, Jayesh Desai, Natalie Taylor","doi":"10.1159/000544946","DOIUrl":"10.1159/000544946","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Rapid advancements in genomic testing have revolutionised cancer care diagnostics and treatment. However, keeping pace with the evolving genomics knowledge is a challenge for oncologists who are not genomic experts. This detrimentally impacts on equitable patient access to related services and benefits which require training in genomics. In Australia, cancer incidence, survival, and mortality rates are significantly worse in the most socioeconomically disadvantaged areas compared to the least disadvantaged areas. Guided by implementation science methods, the research aimed to determine how to support oncologists with varying levels of genomic expertise to tailor optimal treatment decisions and deliver a high-quality service, across diverse geographical locations.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We used a novel approach combining clinician intuition and implementation science theory to co-design service interventions (i.e., service models) and associated implementation strategies to inform operationalisation. Phenomenology and principles of co-design guided two phases of data collection with two separate cohorts of oncologists delivering care to advanced cancer patients. Phase 1 interview data were coded thematically to develop the service models, while phase 2 focus group data were used to identify implementation strategies to support service model operationalisation. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) informed phase 1 and 2 data analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Phase 1 established three overarching themes and nine subthemes: (1) access - potential for inequitable patient access by centralising genomic expertise, (2) indicators for test use - identifying suitable patients for complex genomic profiling (CGP) testing, and (3) supporting use of results - confidence to discuss results, particularly from germline and somatic testing. Five challenges were prioritised, mapped to the CGP clinical pathway, and coded to 11 unique CFIR constructs. Across all five prioritised challenges, we recorded 19 intuitive and generated 21 theory-informed strategies. The development of three service models (i.e., centralised expert, local super user, and point of care resources) arose through considering these strategies in combination with the study teams' broader experiences with the iPREDICT trial. In phase 2, we identified 11 implementation challenges, mapped to 7 CFIR constructs, and 11 intuitive and 20 theory-informed strategies for service model operationalisation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The service models generated from our study are currently being tested in a multi-centre implementation study to evaluate feasibility, effectiveness, acceptability, sustainability, and scalability.</p>","PeriodicalId":49650,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Genomics","volume":" ","pages":"113-130"},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143607046","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}