4.7 Article

Utility of Novel Plasma Metabolic Markers in the Diagnosis of Pediatric Tuberculosis: A Classification and Regression Tree Analysis Approach

期刊

JOURNAL OF PROTEOME RESEARCH
卷 15, 期 9, 页码 3118-3125

出版社

AMER CHEMICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1021/acs.jproteome.6b00228

关键词

tuberculosis; metabolomics; plasma; children; diagnosis; NMR

资金

  1. National Science and Technology Major Project of China [2013ZX10003003-004]
  2. Capital Health Research and Development of Special Grant [2016-1-2092]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although tuberculosis (TB) has been the greatest killer due to a single infectious disease, pediatric TB is still hard to diagnose because of the lack of sensitive biomarkers. Metabolomics is increasingly being applied in infectious diseases. But little is known regarding metabolic biomarkers in children with TB. A combination of a NMR-based plasma metabolic method and classification and regression tree (CART) analysis was used to provide a broader range of applications in TB diagnosis in our study. Plasma samples obtained from 28 active TB children and 37 non-TB controls (including 21 RTIs and 16 healthy children) were analyzed by an orthogonal partial least-squares discriminant analysis (OPLS-DA) model, and 17 metabolites were identified that can separate children with TB from non-TB controls. CART analysis was then used to choose 3 of the markers, L-valine, pyruvic acid, and betaine, with the least error. The sensitivity, specificity, and area under the curve (AUC) of the 3 metabolites is 85.7% (24/28, 95% CI, 66.4%, 95.3%), 94.6% (35/37, 95% CI, 80.5%, 99.1%), and 0.984(95% CI, 0.917, 1.000), respectively. The 3 metabolites demonstrated sensitivity of 82.4% (14/17, 95% CI, 55.8%, 95.3%) and specificity of 83.9% (26/31, 95% CI, 65.5%, 93.9%), respectively, in 48 blinded subjects in an independent cohort. Taken together, the novel plasma metabolites are potentially, useful for diagnosis of pediatric TB and would provide insights into the disease mechanism.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据