ArticleAmerican journal of translational research2024
Screening and analysis for potential clinical diagnostic and prognostic markers in allergic rhinitis.
Article in American journal of translational research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Neocnidilide and 6-Gingerol as Key Bioactives in Fresh and DriedInternational journal of molecular sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo identify potential clinical diagnostic and prognostic markers for allergic rhinitis (AR) by analyzing a range of inflammatory and clinical markers in a cohort of patients.
methodsWe conducted a retrospective analysis of clinical data from 493 AR patients treated at Qianjiang Central Hospital from January to March 2023. Patients were categorized based on their outcome. Inclusion and exclusion criteria were strictly applied to select the study population. Various clinical and inflammatory markers were assessed, and statistical analyses were performed to evaluate their diagnostic and prognostic utility.
resultsNo significant differences in traditional demographic factors were found between the good and poor prognosis groups (all P > 0.05). However, significant differences were observed in several inflammatory and clinical markers: Interleukin-4 (IL-4) levels were 17.32 ± 4.21 pg/mL in the good prognosis group versus 18.56 ± 5.89 pg/mL in the poor prognosis group (t=2.562, P=0.011). Interleukin-5 (IL-5) levels were 15.65 ± 3.78 pg/mL versus 16.52 ± 4.56 pg/mL, respectively (t=2.221, P=0.027). Transforming growth factor-β1 (TGF-β1) levels were 39.16 ± 8.92 pg/mL versus 41.32 ± 9.67 pg/mL (t=2.513, P=0.012), and histamine levels were 11.87 ± 3.21 ng/mL versus 12.56 ± 4.03 ng/mL (t=1.991, P=0.047). Interleukin-13 (IL-13) levels were 16.32 ± 3.56 pg/mL versus 17.09 ± 4.21 pg/mL (t=2.108, P=0.036). Serum immunoglobulin E (IgE) levels were significantly different, with 164.87 ± 45.32 IU/mL in the good prognosis group compared to 198.56 ± 58.21 IU/mL in the poor prognosis group (t=6.866, P < 0.001). The composite biomarker model demonstrated high predictive value for AR prognosis with an Area Under Curve of 0.906. Individual markers such as TGF-β1, IL-13, and serum IgE levels showed strong diagnostic potential.
conclusionOur findings underscore the clinical utility of various inflammatory and clinical markers as diagnostic and prognostic indicators for AR. TGF-β1, IL-13, and serum IgE levels, in particular, demonstrated significant diagnostic and prognostic value. An integrated approach combining multiple biomarkers could enhance the accuracy of AR diagnosis and prognosis. Further validation through prospective clinical studies and consideration of treatment interventions are recommended to clarify the clinical implications of these markers.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.