Central European Journal of Urology最新文献

{"title":"Comparison of the microbiome of bladder urine, upper urinary tract urine, and kidney stones in patients with urolithiasis.","authors":"Joanna Chorbińska, Wojciech Krajewski, Paweł Karpiński, Łukasz Nowak, Wojciech Tomczak, Jan Łaszkiewicz, Katarzyna Pacyga-Prus, Sabina Górska, Bartosz Małkiewicz, Tomasz Szydełko","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2025.0020","DOIUrl":"10.5173/ceju.2025.0020","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>It is believed that bacteria can be involved in the formation of all types of stones. The aim of study was to assess the urinary microbiome in patients with urolithiasis.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>The study group included 50 patients qualified for endoscopic treatment of urinary tract stones using: ureteroscopic lithotripsy (URSL), retrograde intrarenal surgery (RIRS), percutaneous nephrolithotripsy (PCNL), endoscopic combined intrarenal surgery (ECIRS). Before the procedure, patients were asked to collect urine and stool for analysis. Urine from the upper urinary tract and stone fragments were collected intraoperatively. The research material was subjected to 16S rRNA sequencing. The chemical composition of stones was assessed using Raman spectroscopy.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In the urinary bladder, upper urinary tract, and kidney stone microbiomes of patients with urolithiasis the predominant bacteria identified were: <i>Acinetobacter, Bifidobacterium, Corynebacterium, Cutibacterium, Paracoccus, Pseudomonas, Staphylococcus</i> and <i>Streptococcus</i>. Further analysis showed the relative similarity of the urinary bladder and upper urinary tract microbiomes and the dissimilarity of the kidney stone microbiome. A comparison of the upper urinary tract microbiome based on the method of urine collection and a comparison of urinary bladder and upper urinary tract microbiomes based on the presence of a DJ stent prior to the procedure showed no statistically significant differences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The microbiome of stones differs from the microbiome of urine, which may play a role in the pathogenesis of urolithiasis. Bladder urine and upper urinary tract urine microbiomes do not differ. Therefore, bladder urine can replace upper urinary tract urine in microbiome studies.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"78 2","pages":"206-220"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12379818/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144944497","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Role of suction in revolutionising endourology: Is it the final frontier - an overview from EAU Endourology.","authors":"Bhaskar K Somani, Vineet Gauhar, Steffi Kar Kei Yuen, Niall Davis, Ewa Bres-Niewada","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2025.0105","DOIUrl":"10.5173/ceju.2025.0105","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"78 2","pages":"181-183"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12379827/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144944532","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Re: Ferrara P, Cammisa I, Zona M, et al. Is it possible to predict the response to therapy in enuretic children? The PiFe score. Cent European J Urol. 2025; 78: 358-366.","authors":"Anil Erdik","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2025.0231","DOIUrl":"10.5173/ceju.2025.0231","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"78 4","pages":"554-555"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13192279/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"148013604","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Is hospitalization still necessary? A systematic review of outpatient HoLEP over the last decade.","authors":"Gabi Shokaier, Anan Hussein, Tarek Taha","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2025.0127","DOIUrl":"10.5173/ceju.2025.0127","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) is a well-established, size-independent surgical intervention for benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH). Traditionally performed with overnight hospitalization, there is increasing interest in same-day discharge to reduce healthcare costs and improve patient satisfaction. This systematic review evaluates the feasibility, safety, efficacy, and cost-effectiveness of HoLEP as an outpatient procedure across all patient populations between 2015 and 2025.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>A systematic search of PubMed and Google Scholar was conducted in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, yielding 15 eligible studies including over 1,500 patients. Outcomes analyzed included same-day discharge rates, readmissions, complications, symptom improvement, and patient satisfaction. Subgroup analyses examined outcomes by age, comorbidities, prostate size, and anticoagulation status.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Same-day discharge (SDD) rates ranged from 60-90%, with contemporary studies achieving rates above 85% in unselected populations. Readmission rates were low (~2-5%), with no significant increase compared to inpatient care. Complication profiles were similar between outpatient and inpatient settings, with most being minor. Functional outcomes such as International Prostate Symptom Score and urinary flow rates showed marked improvement postoperatively, comparable to traditional HoLEP. Advanced laser technology, early surgery scheduling, and standardized post-anesthesia protocols were key facilitators. Cost analyses demonstrated per-case savings of $750-$840 with outpatient care. Older age and anticoagulation were not absolute contraindications for SDD when proper criteria were met.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>HoLEP can be safely and effectively performed as an outpatient procedure in most patients, offering comparable outcomes to inpatient care while reducing costs and enhancing patient satisfaction.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"78 4","pages":"522-531"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12924062/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147269836","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparison of the performance of different formulae to assess eGFR in children after allogenic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.","authors":"Katarzyna Gąsowska, Katarzyna Zachwieja, Jolanta Goździk, Dorota Drożdż","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2025.0225","DOIUrl":"10.5173/ceju.2025.0225","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>There is an ongoing debate concerning the right formula to estimate GFR in pediatric oncological patients or recipients of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We did a retrospective analysis of renal function data before and up-to 3 years post hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). We checked the accuracy and bias of eGFR based on Revised <i>Bedside</i> Schwartz equation 2009 (Schwartz 2009), Flanders Metadata (FLANDERS), CKiD U25 Creatinine (U25CREA), and CKiD U25 Cystatin C (U25CYSC) against Creatinine-Cystatin C-Urea-based CKiD Equation (Schwartz Combined 2012) as the reference.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 179 patients (67.0% female, 20.7% chronic kidney disease) aged 8.5 (5.5) years. Overall eGFR based on the U25CYSC formula performed best (baseline and 3-year follow up percentage of values outside the confidence limits 3.9, and 3.3%, respectively). One year after HSCT the best performance was offered by Schwartz 2009 formula (2.8% of outliers). No other studied formula in the overall analysis had the percentage of outliers less than 5%. FLANDERS had lowest and U25CYSC highest mean error (0.21 vs -22.53 ml/min/1.73 m², respectively). The root mean square error was lowest for FLANDERS (26.9) and highest for U25CYSC (32.36). Both 30% and 10% accuracy was highest for FLANDERS (91.06 and 42.46%, respectively), and lowest for U25CYSC (78.77 and 31.28%, respectively).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There were small differences in accuracy between simpler eGFR formulae against the reference formula, however we observed differences in error. The U25CYSC offered best accuracy but largest error leading to underestimation of eGFR. Therefore, when applying given formula, one must be mindful of its potential limitations and potential inherent biases.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"78 4","pages":"546-553"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12924077/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147269821","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Cancer stem cells and their role in metastasis.","authors":"Michał C Czarnogórski, Aleksandra Czernicka, Krzysztof Koper, Piotr Petrasz, Marta Pokrywczyńska, Kajetan Juszczak, Filip Kowalski, Tomasz Drewa, Jan Adamowicz","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2024.0144","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2024.0144","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Cancer, next to cardiovascular diseases, remains the primary concern of modern medicine in developed countries. Despite the unprecedented progress in targeted therapies and personalised medicine, including immunotherapy and gene therapy, we are still unable to efficiently treat many malignancies. One of the major obstacles to treating cancer is its ability to metastasise. Hence, a better understanding of cancer biology with emphasis on the metastasis formation may hold the key to further ameliorating cancer treatment. Nowadays, there is a growing body of evidence for the common denominator of neoplasia, which seems to be universal - cancer stem cells which are being found in a growing number of cancers.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We conducted a Web of Science and Medline database search using the terms \"cancer stem cells\", \"carcinogenesis\", and \"stem cells\" in conjunction with \"metastasis\", without setting time limits.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The existence of cancer stem cells was proven both in animal models and in humans. We know beyond doubt that cancer stem cells may be found in bladder cancer, breast cancer, and colon cancer, among others. The cancer stem cells in the aforementioned cancers may initiate tumour formation <i>ex vivo</i> and thus theoretically lead to tumour recurrence. Their role in the formation of metastases, however, is still under investigation.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although their exact role is yet to be identified, it is now obvious that cancer stem cells give rise to primary mass in solid tumours and differentiated cancer cells in leukaemias. However, the role of cancer stem cells in metastasis is still obscure.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"78 1","pages":"40-51"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12073518/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144076286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Discrepancies in volume: impact of Artemis segmented magnetic resonance imaging, ultrasound, and ExactVu measurements on prostate specific antigen density and National Comprehensive Cancer Network risk stratification.","authors":"Maximilian J Rabil, Lindsey T Webb, Gabriela M Diaz, Soum D Lokeshwar, Ankur U Choksi, Preston C Sprenkle","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2024.0249","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5173/ceju.2024.0249","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The combination of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) and ultrasound (US) allows for better lesion targeting and diagnostic probability compared to random prostate biopsies. The Artemis Fusion Biopsy system and ExactVu micro-US technology capitalize on this advantage and provide higher-resolution imaging of the prostate during biopsy. Their accuracy in measuring prostate volume and resulting implications on prostate specific antigen (PSA) density and risk stratification, however, has not been evaluated. We hypothesized that PSA densities as measured by these modalities will demonstrate clinically insignificant differences compared to standard measurement.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We retrospectively reviewed all prostate fusion biopsy cases performed at our health system with Artemis or ExactVu systems from April 2021 to July 2023 and compared the PSA density calculated from the volume obtained with these systems to standard measurement with ellipsoid calculation from MRI. Change in National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN) prostate cancer risk stratification was analyzed for each system.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Artemis MRI segmentation (0.179 ng/ml, p = 0.04) and US (0.181 ng/ml, p = 0.067) underestimated and ExactVu micro-US (0.247 ng/ml, p <0.001) overestimated PSA density. Risk stratification changed in 1.2% of Artemis MRI segmentation cases, 1.6% of Artemis US cases, and 1.2% of ExactVu micro-US cases.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Despite differences in PSA density, choice of fusion biopsy system has minimal clinical impact on risk stratification and any of these studied systems may be used without fear of misrepresenting a patient's disease state.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"78 1","pages":"1-4"},"PeriodicalIF":1.4,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12073516/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144076289","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Simulation-based training in minimally invasive partial nephrectomy.","authors":"Athanasios Bouchalakis, Eleni Paspalaki, Gernot Ortner, Bhaskar Kumar Somani, Charalampos Mamoulakis, Chandra Shekhar Biyani, Theodoros Tokas","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2024.0189","DOIUrl":"10.5173/ceju.2024.0189","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Minimally-invasive partial nephrectomy (MIPN) is the standard treatment for kidney tumors with a diameter smaller than 4 cm. It is also performed in selected cases of tumors reaching 7 cm, but it may lead to potential complications. We investigated the current literature for simulators that could be used to teach urologists alone or within the boundaries of a course or a curriculum.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>We performed a literature search using PubMed (Ovid Medline Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations, Ovid MEDLINE [R] Daily, and Ovid MEDLINE [R]). Search terms included: simulation, simulation training, education, curricul*, partial nephrectomy, and nephron-sparing surgery. The primary endpoints were the efficacy of different simulators and the impact of different devices, curricula, or courses in training and trainee learning curves.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified 16 studies evaluating simulation with 3D reconstruction, <i>ex vivo, in vivo</i>, synthetic models, and virtual reality simulators. Additionally, we identified one study presenting a training curriculum. The results appeared promising, although currently available studies are scarce. Regardless of the type of simulator, participants stated that, to some degree, their skills were improved and their confidence was elevated.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Simulation-based training can help novice surgeons familiarize themselves with complex procedure steps and reduce learning curves. A specific validated curriculum for this operation still needs to be included. Validating simulators or curricula for MIPN could be essential to enable more urologists to treat patients safely and effectively.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"78 2","pages":"116-124"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12379830/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144944484","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparison of MemoKath™ ureteral stent versus tumor ureteral stent: A single-center long-term analysis.","authors":"Milan Wahl, Osama Mahmuod, Ulrich Krafft, Christopher Darr, Jan Philipp Radtke, Boris Hadaschik, Andrej Panic","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2024.0156","DOIUrl":"10.5173/ceju.2024.0156","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>The MemoKath™-051 (MK) is a thermo-expandable spiral stent for the treatment of benign or malignant ureteral obstruction. Existing studies on outcome measurements, like complication rate or time to stent exchange for MK differ significantly. In this retrospective analysis, we investigated the supposed superiority of the MK over conventional tumor ureteral stent (TUS) insertion.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>In this monocentric retrospective analysis, 72 consecutive patients with benign or malignant extrinsic ureteral stenosis who either underwent insertion of a MK or TUS between 03/2008 and 12/2018 were analyzed. Indications for stent insertion were either chronic benign or malignant extrinsic obstruction in patients who were unsuitable for or refused definitive surgery. Patients who underwent urinary diversion were excluded. We compared the indwelling time, the complication rates and the time to occurrence of complications using Mann-Whitney-U-test and χ² test for categorical variables. Complication rates of both, the MK and the TUS were compared using Fisher´s test. Complications were classified according to Clavien-Dindo Classification (CDC).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The total number of ureteral units analyzed was 171, including 89 MK stents and 82 TUSs. No significant differences between both groups regarding age, stent indications, and stricture characteristics occurred. At a median follow-up of 32 and 27 months in the MK and TUS groups, postoperative complications occurred in 82 (92%) and 19 (23%) patients, respectively (p = 0.01). Almost all complications were major (CDC grade 3b) that required stent removal or replacement, with the exception of one patient in the MK group. Median time to complications was significantly longer for the MK group, 5.6 months, compared to 3.5 months in the TUS group (p = 0.01), and median time to stent replacement was 8 months for the MK group vs 5.2 months for the TUS group (p <0.001).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Although the MemoKath™ is designed for a long indwelling time of up to years, it is associated with higher complication rates and premature replacement. However, compared to the TUS, the MK still has a significantly longer indwelling time. Further studies are needed to determine the predictors of failure and the best candidates for both stents.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"78 2","pages":"237-243"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12379825/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144944499","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Holmium laser enucleation of the prostate vs single-port transvesical enucleation of the prostate: Single-center comparative surgical outcomes during early adoption.","authors":"Arianna Biasatti, Angelo Orsini, Oren Feldman-Schultz, Kyle A Dymanus, Morgan R Sturgis, Fabio Maria Valenzi, Srinivas Vourganti, Riccardo Autorino, Shaan A Setia","doi":"10.5173/ceju.2025.0060","DOIUrl":"10.5173/ceju.2025.0060","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>To compare the surgical outcomes of holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) and robotic single-port transvesical enucleation of the prostate (STEP) for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) during early adoption at a single center.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Data about consecutive BPH patients who underwent HoLEP and STEP at our Center from July 2023 to September 2024 were retrospectively analyzed. Both procedures were performed by surgeons at the beginning of their experience with the procedures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Thirty HoLEP and 20 STEP cases were included in the analysis. STEP patients had larger prostate volume (median 101.5 vs 78.5 cc; p = 0.003). Median operative time was longer for STEP (286 vs 124 min, p <0.001). Median catheterization time was shorter for HoLEP (3 vs 7 days, p <0.001). Transient post-operative incontinence was higher for HoLEP (31% vs 5.3%, p = 0.032). There was no difference in median length of stay (30 hours for HoLEP and 31 hours for STEP; p = 0.108).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Both HoLEP and STEP can be safely implemented for the minimally invasive treatment of BPH. Each of the procedures presents some appealing features that can be tailored to different subgroups of patients. HoLEP is appealing for higher surgical risk patients, while STEP allows to effectively manage larger glands even at the beginning of the surgeon's learning curve. As experience with SP robotic surgery matures, it is likely that STEP becomes a competitive alternative to the well-established HoLEP.</p>","PeriodicalId":9744,"journal":{"name":"Central European Journal of Urology","volume":"78 2","pages":"177-180"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12379826/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"144944542","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}