BJU International最新文献

{"title":"Oral Presentation","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/bju.70412","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.70412","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"138 S3","pages":"S6-S9"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148965645","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Moderated Poster Presentation","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/bju.70411","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.70411","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"138 S3","pages":"S10-S19"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148965646","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Moderated Video Presentation","authors":"","doi":"10.1111/bju.70414","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.70414","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"138 S3","pages":"S68-S71"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148965648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Intermittent enzalutamide in recurrent prostate cancer: testosterone kinetics and related toxicity","authors":"Jennifer L. Marte, Amy Hankin, Monique Williams, James L. Gulley, Fatima Karzai, Marijo Bilusic, Lisa Cordes, William D. Figg, Ravi A. Madan, Melissa L. Abel","doi":"10.1111/bju.70443","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.70443","url":null,"abstract":"Objectives To determine the relationship between gynaecomastia and testosterone levels in patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer treated with androgen receptor pathway inhibitor (ARPI) monotherapy. Patients and Methods This analysis evaluates changes in serum testosterone and the incidence of gynaecomastia. Patients with biochemically recurrent prostate cancer were given 3 months of enzalutamide intermittently with no androgen deprivation. Serum testosterone was within the normal range. Testosterone and adverse events were monitored prospectively. Results A total of 38 patients were enrolled with a median age of 64.6 years, median (range) serum prostate‐specific antigen level of 4.38 (2.01–19.43) ng/mL, and median (range) serum testosterone level of 316 (167–723) ng/dL. Testosterone had a median peak of 832.5 ng/dL (median increase of 63%). Gynaecomastia symptoms were reported in 16 (42%) patients. There was no correlation with either peak testosterone level or duration of elevated testosterone and gynaecomastia. Patients with gynaecomastia with Course 1 of therapy did not fully predict the incidence of gynaecomastia for Course 2. Conclusions In this study, there is no direct correlation between ARPI monotherapy‐associated testosterone elevation and the incidence of gynaecomastia. The interactions of ARPI monotherapy, gynaecomastia, and testosterone elevation are more nuanced than previously thought and require further study to optimise ARPI monotherapy in clinical practice.","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"78 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2026-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148957985","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Prospective randomised double‐blind trial: holmium laser lithotripsy with vs without Moses™ 2.0","authors":"Kimberly A. Maciolek, Naren Nimmagadda, Aaron X. Lee, Amy M. Reed, Ryan S. Hsi, Tatsuki Koyama, Connor M. Forbes, Matthew S. Lee, Cyrus Chehroudi, Ezra J. Margolin, Ben H. Chew, Seth K. Bechis, Mitchell R. Humphreys, Michael E. Lipkin, Manoj Monga, Ojas Shah, Karen L. Stern, Roger L. Sur, Sri Sivalingam, Nicole L. Miller","doi":"10.1111/bju.70446","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.70446","url":null,"abstract":"Objective To assess the effect of Moses™ 2.0 (Lumenis Be Ltd., Yokneam Illit, Israel; Boston Scientific, Marlborough, MA, USA) for lithotripsy of renal stones of 8–20 mm in diameter on operative time, surgeon workload, and retropulsion. Subjects/Patients and Methods In our multicentre, randomised, double‐blind clinical trial, patients were randomised 1:1 to standard or Moses 2.0 laser lithotripsy and stratified by stone size. Patients and surgeons were blinded to laser modality. Primary outcomes were total operative time as well as surgeon workload assessed by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration‐Task Load Index (NASA‐TLX). Secondary outcomes were stone retropulsion evaluated by blinded video review and postoperative clinical outcomes. Linear regression modelling was used for analysis. Results A total of 153 patients (79 Standard, 74 Moses 2.0) with similar clinical, stone, and operative characteristics were evaluated. There was no significant difference in operative times between the Standard and Moses 2.0 groups ( <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.73). Moses 2.0 was associated with lower effort, frustration, mental, physical, and temporal workload, as well as higher rated overall performance compared to the standard laser. Video review demonstrated no difference in rates of retropulsion ( <jats:italic>P</jats:italic> = 0.13). Complication rates (Standard: 13%; Moses 2.0: 10%) and stone‐free rates (Standard: 51%; Moses: 2.0 55%) were comparable. Conclusion Our study evaluated the impact of Moses 2.0 technology on high‐powered renal stone dusting, constituting the largest double‐blind trial of its kind to date. There was insufficient evidence to suggest any difference in operative times or clinical outcomes when using Moses 2.0 compared to standard laser lithotripsy. Moses 2.0 was associated with reduced surgeon workload, which has implicit impact on surgeon wellness.","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"16 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2026-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148957987","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Quality of life in patients on active surveillance for bladder cancer","authors":"Rodolfo Hurle, Roberto Contieri, Francesco Sormani, Massimo Lazzeri, Giovanni Lughezzani, Alessio Finocchiaro, Giacomo Stoppa, Mario Tiscione, Paolo Casale, Nicolò Maria Buffi, Marco Paciotti","doi":"10.1111/bju.70449","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/bju.70449","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.5,"publicationDate":"2026-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148915408","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Artificial intelligence in genitourinary oncology: publication trends and systematic review","authors":"Alee Kim,&nbsp;Nicole A. Moore,&nbsp;Tammy Dong,&nbsp;Kelsy Fu,&nbsp;Katie Keyser,&nbsp;Shari Clifton,&nbsp;Adanma Ayanambakkam,&nbsp;Ryan Nipp","doi":"10.1111/bju.70361","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bju.70361","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To conduct an analysis of publication trends and a systematic review of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to characterize the current state of artificial intelligence (AI) use in genitourinary (GU) oncology, as AI has emerged as a transformative tool in healthcare with potential applications in diagnostics, treatment planning, and prognostication.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We searched the Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE; Ovid), and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) Ultimate for studies related to AI and GU oncology, excluding non-English papers, non-human studies, review articles, and articles using AI solely for manuscript writing. Publication trends were analysed from 2013 to 2023 and categorized by study design and cancer type. RCTs were evaluated through systematic review using Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation Ltd, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia) for screening and data extraction. Two reviewers independently assessed all studies, with risk of bias (RoB) evaluated using the Cochrane RoB 2.0 tool.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Of 2409 articles identified, 1220 met inclusion criteria. These included 962 retrospective articles, 175 prospective studies, 79 studies with combined retrospective/prospective methods, and four RCTs. Studies most commonly addressed prostate (<i>n</i> = 923), renal (<i>n</i> = 274), and urothelial (<i>n</i> = 194) cancers. Publications grew from 14 in 2013 to 362 in 2023, with substantial acceleration in 2019. Four RCTs were identified – one in urothelial cancer and three in prostate cancer. Two RCTs evaluated AI-based diagnostics, demonstrating improved performance over conventional methods; the remaining two RCTs evaluated AI in prognostication and treatment planning, showing improved gains in imaging interpretation and operational efficiency. RoB varied across studies, primarily related to randomisation and deviations from intended interventions.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Artificial intelligence research in GU oncology has grown, although high-level evidence from RCTs remains limited. Existing trials underscore AI's promise in diagnostics, prognostication, and treatment planning, and the rapidly evolving nature of this field warrants continued prospective investigation.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"138 4","pages":"549-557"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148321998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Outcomes of maintenance BCG versus gemcitabine/docetaxel following BCG induction in NMIBC","authors":"Pierre-Etienne Gabriel,&nbsp;Alec Zhu,&nbsp;Christopher G. Karim,&nbsp;Ahmed Eraky,&nbsp;Raghav Gupta,&nbsp;Reuben Ben-David,&nbsp;Reza Mehrazin,&nbsp;Peter Wiklund,&nbsp;John P. Sfakianos","doi":"10.1111/bju.70375","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bju.70375","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objectives</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To compare the oncologic outcomes and safety profiles of Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) versus gemcitabine/docetaxel (Gem/Doce) maintenance following BCG induction in treatment-naïve non–muscle-invasive bladder cancer (NMIBC).</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>We identified patients with treatment-naive NMIBC who received induction BCG followed by maintenance BCG per the Southwest Oncology Group Cancer Research Network protocol or Gem/Doce monthly for 1 year (2016–2026). Oncological outcomes included recurrence-free survival (RFS), high-grade RFS, progression-free survival, and metastasis-free survival. Adverse events were systematically assessed to evaluate treatment tolerability.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Overall, 128 patients received BCG induction followed by either BCG maintenance (<i>n</i> = 98; 76.6%) or Gem/Doce maintenance (<i>n</i> = 30; 23.4%). After a median follow-up of 75.0 months (interquartile range [IQR] 66.7–86.5) in the BCG group and 22.5 months (IQR 14.8–42.9) in the Gem/Doce group (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001), 3-year RFS (80.0% vs. 83.8%; <i>P</i> = 0.8), 3-year high-grade RFS (83.4% vs. 92.2%; <i>P</i> = 0.7), 3-year progression-free survival (90.0% vs. 96.6%; <i>P</i> = 0.4), and 3-year metastasis-free survival (96.8% vs. 100.0%; <i>P</i> = 0.3) were comparable between the BCG and Gem/Doce maintenance groups, respectively. Multivariable Cox regression analysis confirmed that Gem/Doce versus BCG maintenance was not associated with disease recurrence (hazard ratio 1.04; 95% confidence interval 0.39–2.83; <i>P</i> &gt; 0.9). Overall, Gem/Doce maintenance was better tolerated, with fewer patients reporting adverse events (6.7% vs. 28%, <i>P</i> = 0.02) and no severe events observed during the maintenance phase. Limitations of the study include its retrospective design and the relatively small sample size of the Gem/Doce cohort.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusion</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Sequential Gem/Doce maintenance following BCG induction achieved oncologic outcomes comparable to those with BCG maintenance, with improved tolerability, highlighting its feasibility as an alternative in cases of BCG intolerance or shortage.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"138 4","pages":"640-649"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148379731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Proficiency-based training and evidence-based methodology: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Ruben De Groote,&nbsp;Edoardo Beatrici,&nbsp;Maria Peraire Lores,&nbsp;Stefano Puliatti,&nbsp;Marco Amato,&nbsp;Elio Mazzone,&nbsp;Rui Farinha,&nbsp;Artur Paludo,&nbsp;Claudia Collà Ruvolo,&nbsp;Eleonora Balestrazzi,&nbsp;Luigi Nocera,&nbsp;Carlo Andrea Bravi,&nbsp;Federico Piramide,&nbsp;Marco Paciotti,&nbsp;Adele Piro,&nbsp;Silvia Rebuffo,&nbsp;Gabriele Sorce,&nbsp;Ben Van Cleynenbreugel,&nbsp;Brendan P. Bunting,&nbsp;Wouter Everaerts,&nbsp;Alexandre Mottrie,&nbsp;Anthony G. Gallagher","doi":"10.1111/bju.70333","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bju.70333","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To assess adherence of self-labelled proficiency-based progression (PBP) studies to evidence-based PBP criteria and examine associations with training outcomes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews. PubMed, CENTRAL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Scopus were searched from inception to 1 March 2023. Prospective English-language studies on healthcare procedural training reporting objective performance outcomes were included; non-prospective, non-quantitative, non-procedural, non-English studies, and reviews were excluded. Pre-specified outcomes included adherence to 18 evidence-based PBP criteria and objective performance metrics (errors, steps, time); secondary outcomes included proficiency benchmark achievement and Likert ratings. Data extraction was performed independently by multiple reviewers. Study quality was assessed using the Medical Education Research Study Quality Instrument and risk of bias by two investigators. Effect sizes were pooled using random-effects models (DerSimonian–Laird), expressed as the ratio of means (ROM) for continuous outcomes and bias-corrected odds ratios for dichotomous outcomes.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Of 646 studies identified 175 met inclusion criteria. In the PBP studies (<i>n</i> = 18), 94% fulfilled minimum criteria (use of a proficiency benchmark, its quantitative definition, and requirement for demonstration prior to progression) vs 36% of non-PBP studies (<i>n</i> = 157). If all PBP criteria were included, 83% of PBP studies used these criteria vs only 2% of non-PBP-studies. In quantitative analysis (27 randomised clinical studies, 761 participants), ROM results showed that PBP training reduced the number of performance errors by 58% (<i>P</i> &lt; 0.001) and procedural time by 28% (<i>P</i> = 0.006), increasing number of steps performed by 22% (<i>P</i> = 0.03). When stratified based on number of criteria fulfilled, meta-regression demonstrated that increasing the number of PBP criteria fulfilled was associated with progressive and systematic trainee performance improvement.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>The more training methodologies adhere to established PBP criteria, the better training outcome will be.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"138 4","pages":"527-536"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148148559","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Retrograde intrarenal surgery with flexible and navigable suction access sheaths vs mini-percutaneous nephrolithotomy for large upper urinary tract stones: a systematic review and meta-analysis","authors":"Han Jie Lee,&nbsp;Clyve Yaow,&nbsp;Ryan Ian Houe Chong,&nbsp;Sonam Kelzang,&nbsp;Vineet Gauhar,&nbsp;Steffi Kar Kei Yuen,&nbsp;Alvin Wei Xiang Low,&nbsp;Palaniappan Sundaram,&nbsp;Wei Zhu,&nbsp;Guohua Zeng,&nbsp;Tsung Wen Chong,&nbsp;Jingzeng Du","doi":"10.1111/bju.70393","DOIUrl":"10.1111/bju.70393","url":null,"abstract":"<div>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Objective</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>To conduct a meta-analysis comparing the efficacy and perioperative outcomes of contemporary flexible and navigable suction access sheath-assisted retrograde intrarenal surgery (FANS-RIRS) against percutaneous nephrolithotomy (PCNL) for the management of large upper urinary tract stones, as despite technological advances in RIRS such as high-powered lasers and FANS that have substantially enhanced its performance, current guidelines continue to recommend PCNL as first-line treatment for renal stones &gt;2cm.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Methods</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Library were searched for studies performing direct comparisons of FANS-RIRS against PCNL in adult patients until September 2025. Primary outcomes included stone-free rates (SFRs) and need for ancillary procedures. Secondary outcomes included operative time, length of postoperative hospitalisation, and postoperative complications.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Results</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>A total of 10 studies (three randomised control trials, seven retrospective cohort studies) comprising 2347 patients were included; preoperative stone sizes were predominantly 2–3 cm. All PCNL procedures in the studies included were performed as mini-PCNL. The SFRs for FANS-RIRS were comparable with mini-PCNL across all stone sizes (odds ratio [OR] 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.70–1.17) and stones ≥2 cm (OR 0.80, 95% CI 0.60–1.08), with low heterogeneity. Ancillary procedures rates were similar (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.61–2.44). FANS-RIRS was associated with significantly fewer overall complications, specifically smaller haemoglobin decline, need for transfusion, and shorter hospital stay. However, mini-PCNL demonstrated shorter operative times for stones ≥2 cm. Urosepsis rates were low and similar between both groups. Limitations include predominance of Asian studies, variability of practice, and inclusion of non-randomised studies.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 \u0000 <section>\u0000 \u0000 <h3> Conclusions</h3>\u0000 \u0000 <p>Contemporary FANS-RIRS achieves SFRs comparable to mini-PCNL even for 2–3 cm stones, while offering superior safety profiles and shorter hospitalisation; this supports FANS-RIRS as a viable primary treatment in selected patients.</p>\u0000 </section>\u0000 </div>","PeriodicalId":8985,"journal":{"name":"BJU International","volume":"138 4","pages":"576-588"},"PeriodicalIF":4.1,"publicationDate":"2026-09-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148618341","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}