Figure 1.
Patients in low risk group had a superior overall survival compared to those in high risk group.
Citation: Ashhad Imam, Shashank Mishra, Yeetendra Kumar Bind. Review study towards corrosion mechanism and its impact on the durability of concrete structures[J]. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(2): 276-300. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.2.276
| [1] | Gaozhong Sun, Tongwei Zhao . Lung adenocarcinoma pathology stages related gene identification. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(1): 737-746. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020038 |
| [2] | Pingping Song, Jing Chen, Xu Zhang, Xiaofeng Yin . Construction of competitive endogenous RNA network related to circular RNA and prognostic nomogram model in lung adenocarcinoma. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2021, 18(6): 9806-9821. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2021481 |
| [3] | Yong Ding, Jian-Hong Liu . The signature lncRNAs associated with the lung adenocarcinoma patients prognosis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(2): 1593-1603. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020083 |
| [4] | Siqi Hu, Fang Wang, Junjun Yang, Xingxiang Xu . Elevated ADAR expression is significantly linked to shorter overall survival and immune infiltration in patients with lung adenocarcinoma. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2023, 20(10): 18063-18082. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2023802 |
| [5] | Kunpeng Li, Zepeng Wang, Yu Zhou, Sihai Li . Lung adenocarcinoma identification based on hybrid feature selections and attentional convolutional neural networks. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2024, 21(2): 2991-3015. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2024133 |
| [6] | Dongchen Lu, Wei Han, Kai Lu . Identification of key microRNAs involved in tumorigenesis and prognostic microRNAs in breast cancer. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(4): 2923-2935. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020164 |
| [7] | Yanping Xie, Zhaohui Dong, Junhua Du, Xiaoliang Zang, Huihui Guo, Min Liu, Shengwen Shao . The relationship between mouse lung adenocarcinoma at different stages and the expression level of exosomes in serum. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(2): 1548-1557. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020080 |
| [8] | Shuyi Cen, Kaiyou Fu, Yue Shi, Hanliang Jiang, Jiawei Shou, Liangkun You, Weidong Han, Hongming Pan, Zhen Liu . A microRNA disease signature associated with lymph node metastasis of lung adenocarcinoma. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2020, 17(3): 2557-2568. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2020140 |
| [9] | Bijiong Wang, Yaodong Tang, Biyun Yu, Di Gui, Hui Xu . Expression of autophagy-related factor p62 for lung cancer diagnosis and prognosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2019, 16(6): 6805-6821. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2019340 |
| [10] | Jian Huang, Zheng-Fu Xie . Identification of SSBP1 as a prognostic marker in human lung adenocarcinoma using bioinformatics approaches. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 2022, 19(3): 3022-3035. doi: 10.3934/mbe.2022139 |
Lung cancer are the most common causes of cancer-related deaths worldwide, which accounts for over 25% of all cancer-related deaths [1,2]. Lung cancer is classified into four main histological categories: lung adenocarcinoma (LUAD), lung squamous cell carcinoma (LUSC), large cell lung carcinoma (LCLC) and small cell lung cancer (SCLC). Recent development in molecular targeted therapies have markedly improved the survival of individuals with LUAD.
Risk stratification and survival estimation are very important to guide personalized treatment decision in patients with cancer. The principal clinical determinant in the therapeutics option and prognosis prediction for most solid tumors is tumor status, characterized by TNM staging system. However, there are heterogeneous clinical outcomes in patients sharing similar clinical features, indicating that TNM staging system is insufficient in risk stratification and the management of tumors could be improved by combining bio molecular signatures with traditional TNM staging system.
miRNAs are short (approximately 18–24 nucleotides) noncoding RNAs and are common mechanisms of the posttranscriptional gene expression [3,4,5]. miRNAs play important roles in various process of tumor genesis and development [6,7]. They are highly conserved and their dysregulation are observed in all the types of tumors [6,7,8]. As miRNAs are very stable due to their resistance to RNase activity and to inferior circumstances [3], they can serve as cancer markers. Furthermore, the miRNA signature associated with survival outcome will be helpful to elucidate the mechanisms of miRNAs in lung cancer as well as develop novo therapeutics. In fact, a number of miRNAs have been characterized as promising molecule biomarkers for diagnosis, prediction of treatment efficacy, recurrence, metastasis and prognosis in patients with head and neck cancer [9,10], lung cancer [11,12,13,14,15,16,17], breast cancer [18,19,20,21], gastric cancer [22], pancreatic cancer [23], colorectal cancer [24,25], prostate cancer [26], cervical cancer [27,28] and bladder cancer [29].
In our present study, a prognosis predicting model was constructed by a combination of miRNA expression profile and TNM classification parameters, and the prognostic model was visualized with a nomogram.
The miRNA expression data (Data S1) and corresponding clinical information (Data S2) were downloaded from The Cancer Genome Atlas (TCGA) database (https://cancergenome.nih.gov/) at March 2019. There were 1881 miRNAs from 567 samples, including 521 LUAD tissues and 46 adjacent normal lung tissues, which were collected from patients with LUAD. Individuals with missing records in overall survival, endpoint event, sex, age at diagnosis, smoking history, TNM stages, cancer status, postoperative treatment, radiotherapy and treatment outcome, were excluded. Individuals whose survival time shorter than 2 months were also excluded, because they are likely to die from causes other than cancer. 460 individuals with LUAD were included in Cox regression analysis and randomly assigned into two distinct subetaoups, 306‐patient training set and 154‐patient validating set, at a ratio of 2:1, when visualizing the prognostic model with a nomogram.
The expression data for miRNAs was normalized by log 2 transformation. Differential expression analysis between two groups (cancer vs control) was performed through Bayesian test with package ‘limma’ [30] for R (v3.6.3) [31] on the criteria of |log 2 FC (fold change)| ≥ 1 and P value < 0.05 [32,33,34].
The differentially expressed miRNA data and clinical data were combined through function ‘merge’ in R. Then the possible prognostic value of differentially expressed miRNAs and clinicopathological parameters (194 differentially expressed miRNAs, T stage, N stage and Metastasis status) were assessed by univariate Cox regression analysis with R package ‘survival’ [35]. Subsequently, the candidate miRNAs and clinicopathological parameters with P value < 0.1 (41 miRNAs, T stage, N stage and Metastasis status) were further evaluated by multivariate Cox regression analysis with R package ‘survival’ [35].
miRNA index was calculated by a linear combination of miRNA expression levels weighted by regression coefficient (β) from multivariate Cox regression analysis [10,11,12,19,21,25,28]. The formula was as follows: miR.index = βgene1 × exprgene1 + βgene2 × exprgene2 + … + βgenen × exprgenen, where “expr” indicated the expression levels of miRNA. With the median miR.index as the cutoff point, patients were stratified into two groups: low risk group (<median miR.index) and high risk group (>miR.index). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was performed for the low and high risk groups with R package ‘survival’ [35] and ‘survminer’ [36].
A nomogram was generated to visualize the effect of the miR.index and clinicopathological parameters on the survival of patients with LUAD in the training set, using R package ‘rms’ [37]. Subsequently, the prognostic model was tested by calculating the C-index and drawing the calibration curve in the training set and validating set, respectively.
The aforementioned methods used in this study were illustrated in a flow diagram (Figure S1).
The target genes of the identified prognostic miRNAs were predicted using miRTarBase (Release 7.0, http://miRTarBase.mbc.nctu.edu.tw/) bioinformatics analysis tools, which contains a great number of experimentally validated miRNA target genes. These target genes were then incorporated into Gene Ontology (GO) functional enrichment analysis and Kyoto Encyclopedia of Genes and Genomes (KEGG) pathway enrichment analysis via the online bioinformatics tool, the Database for Annotation, Visualization, and Integrated Discovery (Release 6.8, https://david.ncifcrf.gov/).
All statistical analyses were performed with R. Log-rank test was conducted to compare the difference for survival. Chi-square test was employed to test the clinicopathological parameters between the low risk and high risk groups. All statistical tests were two-tailed and P values < 0.05, except for P value < 0.1 in the univariate Cox regression analysis, were regarded as significant.
Totally, 460 patients with LUAD were enrolled in the present study. The detailed clinicopathological characteristics of enrolled patients were shown in Data S3.
A total of 194 differentially expressed (99 up-regulated and 95 down-regulated) miRNAs were identified between LUAD tissues and matched normal tissues, based on the cut-off criteria of (|log 2 FC| > 1.0 and P < 0.05). The differentially expressed miRNAs were presented in Data S4.
A set of 41 miRNAs, T stage, N stage and Metastasis status, which had potential relationship to patient survival, were screened out by univariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis (Data S5). These candidate miRNAs and TNM classification parameters were further verified by multivariate Cox proportional hazards regression analysis. Nine miRNAs (hsa-let-7i, hsa-mir-1976, hsa-mir-199a-1, hsa-mir-31, hsa-mir-3940, hsa-mir-450a-2, hsa-mir-4677, hsa-mir-548v and hsa‐mir‐6803) and N stage were identified as independent prognostic indicators for patients with LUAD (Data S6). Patients in low risk group had a superior overall survival compared to those in high risk group (89.4 months vs 38.2 months, P = 1e-08) (Figure 1). The demographic and clinicopathological characteristics between patients of the two groups were presented in Table 1. Among these nine miRNAs, hsa-mir-1976, hsa-mir-199a-1, hsa-mir-4677, hsa-mir-548v and hsa‐mir‐6803 were positively correlated with the overall survival, hsa-let-7i, hsa-mir-31, hsa-mir-3940 and hsa-mir-450a-2 were negatively correlated with the overall survival.
| Overall | Low Risk | High Risk | p | ||
| 460 | 230 | 230 | |||
| Sex (%) | Female | 243 (52.8) | 127 (55.2) | 116 (50.4) | 0.35 |
| Male | 217 (47.2) | 103 (44.8) | 114 (49.6) | ||
| age (%) | ≤ 66(Median) | 229 (49.8) | 116 (50.4) | 113 (49.1) | 0.852 |
| ＞66(Median) | 158 (47.6) | 84 (49.4) | 74 (45.7) | ||
| smoking_status (%) | Never Smokers | 62 (13.9) | 40 (17.8) | 22 (10.0) | 0.055 |
| Former Smokers | 273 (61.2) | 130 (57.8) | 143 (64.7) | ||
| Current Smokers | 111 (24.9) | 55 (24.4) | 56 (25.3) | ||
| T (%) | T1 | 158 (34.3) | 83 (36.1) | 75 (32.6) | 0.52 |
| T2 | 243 (52.8) | 122 (53.0) | 121 (52.6) | ||
| T3 | 42 (9.1) | 19 (8.3) | 23 (10.0) | ||
| T4 | 17 (3.7) | 6 (2.6) | 11 (4.8) | ||
| N (%) | N0 | 303 (65.9) | 158 (68.7) | 145 (63.0) | 0.231 |
| N1 | 90 (19.6) | 39 (17.0) | 51 (22.2) | ||
| N2 | 65 (14.1) | 31 (13.5) | 34 (14.8) | ||
| N3 | 2 (0.4) | 2 (0.9) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| M (%) | M0 | 442 (96.1) | 225 (97.8) | 217 (94.3) | 0.092 |
| M1 | 18 (3.9) | 5 (2.2) | 13 (5.7) | ||
| Stage (%) | Stage Ⅰ | 248 (54.5) | 132 (58.1) | 116 (50.9) | 0.168 |
| Stage Ⅱ | 112 (24.6) | 54 (23.8) | 58 (25.4) | ||
| Stage Ⅲ | 77 (16.9) | 36 (15.9) | 41 (18.0) | ||
| Stage Ⅳ | 18 (4.0) | 5 (2.2) | 13 (5.7) | ||
| stage_event.system_version (%) | 3rd | 3 (0.7) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (1.3) | 0.225 |
| 4th | 5 (1.1) | 3 (1.3) | 2 (0.9) | ||
| 5th | 29 (6.3) | 13 (5.7) | 16 (7.0) | ||
| 6th | 161 (35.0) | 74 (32.2) | 87 (37.8) | ||
| 7th | 247 (53.7) | 134 (58.3) | 113 (49.1) | ||
| Not Available | 15 (3.3) | 6 (2.6) | 9 (3.9) | ||
| Cancer_Status (%) | Tumor Free | 304 (74.5) | 172 (81.9) | 132 (66.7) | 0.001 |
| With Tumor | 104 (25.5) | 38 (18.1) | 66 (33.3) | ||
| outcome (%) | CR | 273 (72.8) | 162 (81.8) | 111 (62.7) | < 0.001 |
| PR | 4 (1.1) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (2.3) | ||
| SD | 29 (7.7) | 15 (7.6) | 14 (7.9) | ||
| PD | 69 (18.4) | 21 (10.6) | 48 (27.1) | ||
| POT (%) | No | 140 (34.5) | 72 (34.3) | 68 (34.7) | 1 |
| Yes | 266 (65.5) | 138 (65.7) | 128 (65.3) | ||
| RT (%) | No | 56 (13.8) | 23 (11.0) | 33 (16.8) | 0.12 |
| Yes | 351 (86.2) | 187 (89.0) | 164 (83.2) | ||
| T, tumor; N, node; M, metastasis; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; POT, postoperative treatment; RT, radiation therapy. | |||||
DownLoad:
CSV
A total of 1757 target genes of the nine miRNAs were collected from the miRTarBase database (Data S7). The GO biological processes were mainly enriched in regulation of transcription, apoptotic process and response to heat or toxic substance (Data S8). The GO molecular function were linked to protein binding, transcription factor binding, nucleic acid binding and protein tyrosine kinase activity (Data S9). In addition, the KEGG pathways were significantly enriched in mRNA surveillance pathway, transcriptional misregulation in cancer, pathways in cancer, viral carcinogenesis and adherens junction (Data S10).
A nomogram was generated to illustrate the relationship between prognostic indicators and the predicted survival outcomes of patients with LUAD. As shown in Figure 2, miR.index, T stage, N stage and Metastasis status were associated with survival. The clinicopathological parameters between the training set and validating set were well balanced (Table S1). The C-indexes were 0.68 and 0.72 in the training and validating set, respectively. The both C-indexes were close to or greater than 0.7, which confirmed the reliability of the model. Predictive accuracy of the model was further tested by calibration curves comparing actual 3 or 5-year overall survival (proportion) with predicted 3 or 5-year overall survival probability, both in the training and validating set (Figures S2–S5).
LUAD is one of the most fatal malignancies worldwide [1,2]. The prognosis of patients with LUAD would be improved to some extent if tumor behavior could be predicted before initial treatment. Accurate prediction is definitely based on the clinicopathological characteristics, the identification of novel biomarkers and the elucidation of the precise molecular mechanisms underlying LUAD occurrence and development. The TNM staging system, based on the clinicopathological characteristics of cancer, is insufficient in risk stratification and prognosis prediction, and the prediction power could be enhanced when combined with molecular biomarkers.
miRNAs are small non-coding RNAs that regulate gene expression [3,4,5]. They are involved in carcinogenesis and are presented as potential diagnostic or prognostic biomarkers in cancers [6,7]. Several miRNA markers have been identified for prediction of treatment outcome, recurrence, metastasis and prognosis in patients with cancers [9,10,11,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29], including LUAD [14,15,16]. Li et al determined that miR-101-1, miR-220a, miR-450a-2 and miR-4661 were related to survival outcome in patients with LUAD [14]. Lin et al proposed a four miRNAs signature (miR-148a-5p, miR-31-5p, miR-548v and miR-550a-5p) associated with prognosis in patients with LUAD [15]. Interestingly, the miRNA signatures obtained by various studies do not overlap, or just overlap partly, perhaps due to the variability in the methods used to identify differentially expressed miRNAs and screen out risky miRNAs. In most of the aforementioned studies, risk score or prognosis index were constructed with linear combination of miRNA expression levels multiplied by Cox regression coefficient (β). Bias is likely to occur when explain the contribution of risk score or prognosis index to survival, because there was significant difference among the expression levels of each individual miRNA. To avoid this possible bias, we normalized the expression levels of miRNAs by their quantile distribution. Lin et al removed miRNAs with expression levels of zero in ≥ 50% of the patients, because they thought the feasibility of implementation could be enhanced [15]. But to our opinion, some miRNAs downregulated in cancer could be missed when this part of the data was excluded in analysis.
In our research, we identified nine miRNAs (hsa-let-7i, hsa-mir-1976, hsa-mir-199a-1, hsa-mir-31, hsa-mir-3940, hsa-mir-450a-2, hsa-mir-4677, hsa-mir-548v and hsa‐mir‐6803) associated with overall survival in patients with LUAD. Among them, miR-31, miR-450a-2 and miR-548v have been reported previously to be related to clinical outcome in patients with LUAD [14,15].
To gain a deep understanding of the nine miRNAs, we obtained the target genes of these nine miRNAs, and predicted the biological functions and pathways associated with their targets using bioinformatics analysis. The target genes of the nine miRNAs were mainly enriched in key cancer-related biological processes and pathways, such as cell proliferation, cell differentiation, transcription regulation, cell transformation, cell cycle, response to drug and apoptosis. The results suggested that these miRNAs played an important role in the occurrence, development and prognosis of LUAD.
Despite the potential ability of our model to predict prognosis in patients with LUAD, it had some limitations. The utility of different TNM staging system (3rd to 7th edition) and the incomplete records about treatment information (surgery, chemotherapy, radiotherapy and molecular targeted therapy) might cause biases in our analysis. Therefore, the prognostic value of the nine-miRNA signature is warranted for further validations.
The prognostic model constructed with nine miRNA expression profile and TNM classification parameters can predict the survival in patients with LUAD, and the predictive power of the model are warranted for further validations.
The authors want to thank professor Zhongxin Li for his kind help in revising the manuscript.
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
| [1] | Sandhu RS, Singh J, Dhanoa GS (2015) A review on corrosion: causes and prevention. Int J Civil Eng Technol 6: 100–107. |
| [2] |
Chung DDL (2000) Corrosion control of Steel Reinforced Concrete. J Mater Eng Perform 9: 585–588. doi: 10.1361/105994900770345737
|
| [3] | Imam A (2012) Shear strength of corroded reinforced concrete beams. M.S Thesis, Department of Civil Engineering, King Fahd University of Petroleum and Minerals, Dhahran. |
| [4] | Dhawan S, Bhalla S, Bhattacharjee B (2014) Reinforcement Corrosion in Concrete Structures and Service Life Predictions–A Review. 9th International Symposium on Advanced Science and Technology in Experimental Mechanics, New Delhi, India, 1–6 November. |
| [5] | Kumar V, Singh R, Quraishi MA (2013) A Study on Corrosion of Reinforcement in Concrete and Effect of Inhibitor on service life of RCC. J Mater Environ Sci 4: 726–731. |
| [6] |
Ahmad S (2017) Prediction of residual flexural strength of corroded reinforced concrete beams. Anti-Corros Method M 64: 69–74. doi: 10.1108/ACMM-11-2015-1599
|
| [7] | Rathod NG, Moharana NC (2015) Advanced methods of corrosion monitoring a review. Int J Res Eng Technol 04: 413–420. |
| [8] | Bhunia D, Singh SB, Imam A (2013) A Study on Effect of Carbonation on the Properties of Concrete. 3rd UKIERI Concrete Congress: Innovations in Concrete Construction International Conference, NIT Jalandhar, India, March 5–8. |
| [9] | Mangat PS, Elgarf MS (1999) Flexural Strength of concrete beams with corroding reinforcement. ACI Struct J 96: 159–158. |
| [10] |
Ahmad S (2003) Reinforcement corrosion in concrete structures, its monitoring and service life prediction––a review. Cement Concrete Comp 25: 459–471. doi: 10.1016/S0958-9465(02)00086-0
|
| [11] | Rodriguez J, Ortega LM, Casal J (1997) Load carrying capacity of concrete structures with corroded reinforcement. Constr Build Mater 2: 239–248. |
| [12] | Femi OT (2014) A Contemporary Review of the Effects of Corrosion of Damaged Concrete Cover on the Structural Performance of Concrete Structure Using CFRP Strengthened Corroded Beam. J Multidiscip Eng Sci Technol 1: 91–99. |
| [13] |
Cairns J, Dut Y, Law D (2008) Structural performance of corrosion-damaged concrete beams. Mag Concrete Res 60: 359–370. doi: 10.1680/macr.2007.00102
|
| [14] |
Huang R, Yang CC (1997) Condition assessment of reinforced concrete beams relative to reinforcement corrosion. Cement Concrete Comp 19: 131–137. doi: 10.1016/S0958-9465(96)00050-9
|
| [15] |
Austin SA, Lyons R, Ing MJ (2004) Electrochemical Behavior of Steel-Reinforced Concrete during Accelerated Corrosion Testing. Corrosion 60: 203–212. doi: 10.5006/1.3287722
|
| [16] | Ahmad S (2009) Techniques for inducing Accelerated Corrosion of Steel in Concrete. Arabian J Sci Eng 34: 95–104. |
| [17] |
Ha TH, Muralidharan S, Bae JH, et al. (2007) Accelerated Short Term Techniques to Evaluate the Corrosion Performance of Steel in Fly Ash Blended Concrete. Build Environ 42: 78–85. doi: 10.1016/j.buildenv.2005.08.019
|
| [18] |
Care S, Raharinaivo A (2007) Influence of Impressed Current on the Initiation of Damage in Reinforced Mortar due to Corrosion of Embedded Steel. Cement Concrete Res 37: 1598–1612. doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.08.022
|
| [19] | Ahmad S, Bhattacharjee B, Wason R (1997) Experimental Service Life Prediction of Rebar-Corroded Reinforced Concrete Structure. ACI Mater J 94: 311–316. |
| [20] | Azad AK, Ahmad S, Azher SA (2007) Residual Strength of Corrosion-Damaged Reinforced Concrete Members. ACI Mater J 104: 303–310. |
| [21] |
Maaddawy TAE, Soudki KA (2003) Effectiveness of Impressed Current Technique to Simulate Corrosion of Steel Reinforcement in Concrete. ASCE J Mater Civil Eng 15: 41–47. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2003)15:1(41)
|
| [22] |
Ahmad S (2014) An experimental study on correlation between concrete resistivity and reinforcement corrosion rate. Anti-Corros Method M 61: 158–165. doi: 10.1108/ACMM-07-2013-1285
|
| [23] | Yuan Y, Ji Y, Shah SP (2007) Comparison of Two Accelerated Corrosion Techniques for Concrete Structures. ACI Struct J 104: 344–347. |
| [24] | Auyeung Y, Balaguru P, Chung L (2000) Bond Behavior of Corroded Reinforcement Bars. ACI Mater J 97: 214–220. |
| [25] |
Husain A, Al-Bahar S, Salam SA, et al. (2004) Accelerated AC Impedance Testing for Prequalification of Marine Construction Materials. Desalination 165: 377–384. doi: 10.1016/S0011-9164(04)00269-3
|
| [26] |
Torres-Acosta AA, Navarro-Gutierrez S, Teran-Guillen J (2007) Residual flexure capacity of corroded reinforced concrete beams. Eng Struct 29: 1145–1152. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.07.018
|
| [27] | O'Flaherty FJ, Mangat PS, Lambert P, et al. (2010) Influence of shear reinforcement corrosion on the performance of under-reinforced concrete beams. In: SAUSE, Richard and FRANGOPOL, Dan, (eds.) Bridge, maintenance, safety and management. CRC press. |
| [28] |
Torres-Acosta AA, Martnez-Madrid M (2003) Residual Life of Corroding Reinforced Concrete Structures in Marine Environment. J Mater Civil Eng 15: 344–353. doi: 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2003)15:4(344)
|
| [29] | Parthiban T, Ravi R, Parthiban GT (2006) Potential monitoring system for corrosion of steel in concrete. Adv Eng Softw 37. |
| [30] |
Elsener B (2001) Half-cell potential mapping to assess repair work on RC structures. Constr Build Mater 15: 133–139. doi: 10.1016/S0950-0618(00)00062-3
|
| [31] | Verma SK, Bhadauria SS, Akhtar S (2014) Monitoring Corrosion of Steel Bars in Reinforced Concrete Structures. The Scientific World Journal Vol 2014: Article ID 957904, 1–9. |
| [32] | Otieno M, Beushausen H, Alexander M (2011) Prediction of Corrosion Rate in RC Structures-A Critical Review. In: Andrade C., Mancini G. (eds) Modelling of Corroding Concrete Structures. RILEM Bookseries, Springer, Dordrecht. |
| [33] | Gu XL, Zhang WP, Shang DF, et al. (2010) Flexural Behavior of Corroded Reinforced Concrete Beams. 12th Biennial International Conference on Engineering, Construction, and Operations in Challenging Environments; and Fourth NASA/ARO/ASCE Workshop on Granular Materials in Lunar and Martian Exploration, Honolulu, Hawaii, United States. |
| [34] |
Shannag MJ, Al-Ateek SA (2006) Flexural behavior of strengthened concrete beams with corroding reinforcement. Constr Build Mater 20: 834–840. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.059
|
| [35] | Mohammed Ali TK (2014) Flexural behavior of reinforced beams reinforced with corrosive rebar. Int J Civil Struct Eng 5: 64–73. |
| [36] |
Torres-Acosta AA, Navarro-Gutierrez S, Teran-Guillen J (2007) Residual flexure capacity of corroded reinforced concrete beams. Eng Struct 29: 1145–1152. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2006.07.018
|
| [37] |
Azad AK, Ahmad S, Al-Gohi BHA (2010) Flexural strength of corroded reinforced concrete beams. Mag Concrete Res 62: 405–414. doi: 10.1680/macr.2010.62.6.405
|
| [38] | Tachibana Y, Maeda K, Kajikawa Y, et al. (1990) Mechanical behaviour of RC beam damaged by corrosion of reinforcement. 3rd International Symposium on Corrosion of reinforcement in Concrete Construction, Wishaw, UK, 178–187. |
| [39] |
Andrade C, Alonso C, Molina FJ (1993) Cover cracking as a function of bar corrosion. Mater Struct 26: 532–548. doi: 10.1007/BF02472864
|
| [40] | Almusallam AA (2001) Effect of degree of corrosion on the properties of reinforcing steel bars. Constr Build Mater 15: 361–368. |
| [41] |
Apostolopoulos CA, Papadopoulos MP, Pantelakis SG (2006) Tensile behavior of corroded reinforcing steel bars B St. 500s. Constr Build Mater 20: 782–789. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.065
|
| [42] | Maslehuddin M, Allamt IM, Saricimen H, et al. (1993) Influence of atmospheric corrosion on the mechanical properties of reinforcing steel. Constr Build Mater 8: 35–41. |
| [43] |
Imam A, Anifowose F, Azad AK (2015) Residual strength of corroded reinforced concrete beams using an Adaptive Model based on ANN. Int J Concr Struct M 9: 159–172. doi: 10.1007/s40069-015-0097-4
|
| [44] |
Wang XH, Liu XL (2006) Bond strength modelling for corroded reinforcement. Constr Build Mater 20: 177–186. doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.01.015
|
| [45] |
Imam A, Kazmi ZA (2017) Modified regression and ANN model for load carrying capacity of corroded reinforced concrete beam. AIMS Mater Sci 4: 1140-1164. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2017.5.1140
|
| [46] |
Abdalla JA, Elsanosi A, Abdelwahab A (2007) Modelling and simulation of shear resistance of R/C beams using artificial neural network. J Franklin I 344: 741–756. doi: 10.1016/j.jfranklin.2005.12.005
|
| [47] |
Wu X, Ghaboussi J, Garrett JH (1992) Use of neural networks in detection of structural damage. Comput Struct 42: 649–659. doi: 10.1016/0045-7949(92)90132-J
|
| [48] | Imam A, Azad AK (2016) Prediction of residual shear strength of corroded reinforced concrete beams. Int J Adv Struct Eng 8: 307–318. |
| [49] |
Xue X, Seki H (2010) Influence of Longitudinal Bar Corrosion on Shear Behavior of RC Beams. J Adv Concrete Technol 8: 145–156. doi: 10.3151/jact.8.145
|
| [50] |
Juarez CA, Guevara B, Fajardo G, et al. (2011) Ultimate and nominal shear strength in reinforced concrete beams deteriorated by corrosion. Eng Struct 33: 3189–3196. doi: 10.1016/j.engstruct.2011.08.014
|
| [51] |
Xia J, Jin Wei-liang, Li Long-Yuan (2011) Shear performance of reinforced concrete beams with corroded stirrups in chloride environment. Corros Sci 53: 1794–1805. doi: 10.1016/j.corsci.2011.01.058
|
| [52] |
Suffern C, El-Sayed A, Soudki K (2010) Shear strength of disturbed regions with corroded stirrups in reinforced concrete beams. Can J Civil Eng 37: 1045–1056. doi: 10.1139/L10-031
|
| [53] | Cabrera JG, Ghoddousi P (1992) The effect of reinforcement corrosion on the strength of the steel concrete interface. International Conference Bond in Concrete from Research to Practice Proceedings, 11–24. |
| [54] |
Huang R, Yang CC (1997) Condition assessment of reinforced concrete beams relative to reinforcement corrosion. Cement Concrete Compos 19: 131–137. doi: 10.1016/S0958-9465(96)00050-9
|
| [55] | Uomoto T, Misra S (1988) Behaviour of concrete beams and columns in marine environment when corrosion of reinforcing bars takes place. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Concrete in Marine Environment, St. Andrews-by-the-Sea, Canada, 127–146. |
| 1. | Zhiqiang Wang, Fan Hu, Ruijie Chang, Xiaoyue Yu, Chen Xu, Yujie Liu, Rongxi Wang, Hui Chen, Shangbin Liu, Danni Xia, Yingjie Chen, Xin Ge, Tian Zhou, Shuixiu Zhang, Haoyue Pang, Xueni Fang, Yushuang Zhang, Jin Li, Kaiwen Hu, Yong Cai, Development and Validation of a Prognostic Model to Predict Overall Survival for Lung Adenocarcinoma: A Population-Based Study From the SEER Database and the Chinese Multicenter Lung Cancer Database, 2022, 21, 1533-0346, 153303382211332, 10.1177/15330338221133222 | |
| 2. | Zhichao Lin, Wenhai Huang, Zehua Xie, Yongsheng Yi, Zumei Li, Expression, Clinical Significance, Immune Infiltration, and Regulation Network of miR-3940-5p in Lung Adenocarcinoma Based on Bioinformatic Analysis and Experimental Validation, 2022, Volume 15, 1178-7074, 6451, 10.2147/IJGM.S375761 | |
| 3. | Zhenghua Liu, Shize Yang, Siyu Zhou, Shiyao Dong, Jiang Du, Prognostic Value of lncRNA DRAIC and miR-3940-3p in Lung Adenocarcinoma and Their Effect on Lung Adenocarcinoma Cell Progression, 2021, Volume 13, 1179-1322, 8367, 10.2147/CMAR.S320616 | |
| 4. | Beata Smolarz, Adam Durczyński, Hanna Romanowicz, Krzysztof Szyłło, Piotr Hogendorf, miRNAs in Cancer (Review of Literature), 2022, 23, 1422-0067, 2805, 10.3390/ijms23052805 |
Ashhad Imam, Shashank Mishra, Yeetendra Kumar Bind. Review study towards corrosion mechanism and its impact on the durability of concrete structures[J]. AIMS Materials Science, 2018, 5(2): 276-300. doi: 10.3934/matersci.2018.2.276
| Overall | Low Risk | High Risk | p | ||
| 460 | 230 | 230 | |||
| Sex (%) | Female | 243 (52.8) | 127 (55.2) | 116 (50.4) | 0.35 |
| Male | 217 (47.2) | 103 (44.8) | 114 (49.6) | ||
| age (%) | ≤ 66(Median) | 229 (49.8) | 116 (50.4) | 113 (49.1) | 0.852 |
| ＞66(Median) | 158 (47.6) | 84 (49.4) | 74 (45.7) | ||
| smoking_status (%) | Never Smokers | 62 (13.9) | 40 (17.8) | 22 (10.0) | 0.055 |
| Former Smokers | 273 (61.2) | 130 (57.8) | 143 (64.7) | ||
| Current Smokers | 111 (24.9) | 55 (24.4) | 56 (25.3) | ||
| T (%) | T1 | 158 (34.3) | 83 (36.1) | 75 (32.6) | 0.52 |
| T2 | 243 (52.8) | 122 (53.0) | 121 (52.6) | ||
| T3 | 42 (9.1) | 19 (8.3) | 23 (10.0) | ||
| T4 | 17 (3.7) | 6 (2.6) | 11 (4.8) | ||
| N (%) | N0 | 303 (65.9) | 158 (68.7) | 145 (63.0) | 0.231 |
| N1 | 90 (19.6) | 39 (17.0) | 51 (22.2) | ||
| N2 | 65 (14.1) | 31 (13.5) | 34 (14.8) | ||
| N3 | 2 (0.4) | 2 (0.9) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| M (%) | M0 | 442 (96.1) | 225 (97.8) | 217 (94.3) | 0.092 |
| M1 | 18 (3.9) | 5 (2.2) | 13 (5.7) | ||
| Stage (%) | Stage Ⅰ | 248 (54.5) | 132 (58.1) | 116 (50.9) | 0.168 |
| Stage Ⅱ | 112 (24.6) | 54 (23.8) | 58 (25.4) | ||
| Stage Ⅲ | 77 (16.9) | 36 (15.9) | 41 (18.0) | ||
| Stage Ⅳ | 18 (4.0) | 5 (2.2) | 13 (5.7) | ||
| stage_event.system_version (%) | 3rd | 3 (0.7) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (1.3) | 0.225 |
| 4th | 5 (1.1) | 3 (1.3) | 2 (0.9) | ||
| 5th | 29 (6.3) | 13 (5.7) | 16 (7.0) | ||
| 6th | 161 (35.0) | 74 (32.2) | 87 (37.8) | ||
| 7th | 247 (53.7) | 134 (58.3) | 113 (49.1) | ||
| Not Available | 15 (3.3) | 6 (2.6) | 9 (3.9) | ||
| Cancer_Status (%) | Tumor Free | 304 (74.5) | 172 (81.9) | 132 (66.7) | 0.001 |
| With Tumor | 104 (25.5) | 38 (18.1) | 66 (33.3) | ||
| outcome (%) | CR | 273 (72.8) | 162 (81.8) | 111 (62.7) | < 0.001 |
| PR | 4 (1.1) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (2.3) | ||
| SD | 29 (7.7) | 15 (7.6) | 14 (7.9) | ||
| PD | 69 (18.4) | 21 (10.6) | 48 (27.1) | ||
| POT (%) | No | 140 (34.5) | 72 (34.3) | 68 (34.7) | 1 |
| Yes | 266 (65.5) | 138 (65.7) | 128 (65.3) | ||
| RT (%) | No | 56 (13.8) | 23 (11.0) | 33 (16.8) | 0.12 |
| Yes | 351 (86.2) | 187 (89.0) | 164 (83.2) | ||
| T, tumor; N, node; M, metastasis; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; POT, postoperative treatment; RT, radiation therapy. | |||||
DownLoad:
CSV
| Overall | Low Risk | High Risk | p | ||
| 460 | 230 | 230 | |||
| Sex (%) | Female | 243 (52.8) | 127 (55.2) | 116 (50.4) | 0.35 |
| Male | 217 (47.2) | 103 (44.8) | 114 (49.6) | ||
| age (%) | ≤ 66(Median) | 229 (49.8) | 116 (50.4) | 113 (49.1) | 0.852 |
| ＞66(Median) | 158 (47.6) | 84 (49.4) | 74 (45.7) | ||
| smoking_status (%) | Never Smokers | 62 (13.9) | 40 (17.8) | 22 (10.0) | 0.055 |
| Former Smokers | 273 (61.2) | 130 (57.8) | 143 (64.7) | ||
| Current Smokers | 111 (24.9) | 55 (24.4) | 56 (25.3) | ||
| T (%) | T1 | 158 (34.3) | 83 (36.1) | 75 (32.6) | 0.52 |
| T2 | 243 (52.8) | 122 (53.0) | 121 (52.6) | ||
| T3 | 42 (9.1) | 19 (8.3) | 23 (10.0) | ||
| T4 | 17 (3.7) | 6 (2.6) | 11 (4.8) | ||
| N (%) | N0 | 303 (65.9) | 158 (68.7) | 145 (63.0) | 0.231 |
| N1 | 90 (19.6) | 39 (17.0) | 51 (22.2) | ||
| N2 | 65 (14.1) | 31 (13.5) | 34 (14.8) | ||
| N3 | 2 (0.4) | 2 (0.9) | 0 (0.0) | ||
| M (%) | M0 | 442 (96.1) | 225 (97.8) | 217 (94.3) | 0.092 |
| M1 | 18 (3.9) | 5 (2.2) | 13 (5.7) | ||
| Stage (%) | Stage Ⅰ | 248 (54.5) | 132 (58.1) | 116 (50.9) | 0.168 |
| Stage Ⅱ | 112 (24.6) | 54 (23.8) | 58 (25.4) | ||
| Stage Ⅲ | 77 (16.9) | 36 (15.9) | 41 (18.0) | ||
| Stage Ⅳ | 18 (4.0) | 5 (2.2) | 13 (5.7) | ||
| stage_event.system_version (%) | 3rd | 3 (0.7) | 0 (0.0) | 3 (1.3) | 0.225 |
| 4th | 5 (1.1) | 3 (1.3) | 2 (0.9) | ||
| 5th | 29 (6.3) | 13 (5.7) | 16 (7.0) | ||
| 6th | 161 (35.0) | 74 (32.2) | 87 (37.8) | ||
| 7th | 247 (53.7) | 134 (58.3) | 113 (49.1) | ||
| Not Available | 15 (3.3) | 6 (2.6) | 9 (3.9) | ||
| Cancer_Status (%) | Tumor Free | 304 (74.5) | 172 (81.9) | 132 (66.7) | 0.001 |
| With Tumor | 104 (25.5) | 38 (18.1) | 66 (33.3) | ||
| outcome (%) | CR | 273 (72.8) | 162 (81.8) | 111 (62.7) | < 0.001 |
| PR | 4 (1.1) | 0 (0.0) | 4 (2.3) | ||
| SD | 29 (7.7) | 15 (7.6) | 14 (7.9) | ||
| PD | 69 (18.4) | 21 (10.6) | 48 (27.1) | ||
| POT (%) | No | 140 (34.5) | 72 (34.3) | 68 (34.7) | 1 |
| Yes | 266 (65.5) | 138 (65.7) | 128 (65.3) | ||
| RT (%) | No | 56 (13.8) | 23 (11.0) | 33 (16.8) | 0.12 |
| Yes | 351 (86.2) | 187 (89.0) | 164 (83.2) | ||
| T, tumor; N, node; M, metastasis; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; POT, postoperative treatment; RT, radiation therapy. | |||||
