kickserve Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 If you had to define this study as "basic science" or "clinical", which one would you choose? Thanks guys. I can see it as being either EDIT: I guess I'm wondering about pathology studies in general - they involve samples taken from humans, would you deem them clinical? Tubular cell epithelial-mesenchymal transdifferentiation (EMT) is a critical pathogenetic event in the development of chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN). We investigated the hypothesis that urinary cell mRNA profi ling for the molecular mediators of EMT, allograft fibrosis and tubular atrophy offers a noninvasive means of diagnosing CAN. We used pre-amplification enhanced RT-PCR assay for mRNA profiling of urine samples from 46 renal allograft recipients: 17 with biopsy confi rmed CAN and 29 with stable graft function & normal biopsy. EMT was assessed by measurement of mRNA for αSMA (α smooth muscle actin, myofi broblast marker) and TGFβ1 (inducer of EMT and fibrosis) & tubular integrity by measurement of mRNA for PKD1 (polycystic kidney disease protein expressed in proximal tubular cell), NKCC2 (NaK2Cl transporter expressed in cells of loop of Henle) and USAG (uterine sensitization-associated gene 1 expressed in distal tubular cell)..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apache Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 i would say clinical since there is a gold standard to compare too (biopsy), and your study of the biology would presumably be used for clinical diagnostics in my mind it would be analogous to looking for certain viral/bacterial proteins, glucose and imuno-mediators in a spinal tap to better diagnose something like meningitis, it deals with basic biology but the measure is ultimately clinical. overall though it has elements of both, i'm not sure why you really you have to make a clear distinction If you had to define this study as "basic science" or "clinical", which one would you choose? Thanks guys. I can see it as being either EDIT: I guess I'm wondering about pathology studies in general - they involve samples taken from humans, would you deem them clinical? Tubular cell epithelial-mesenchymal transdifferentiation (EMT) is a critical pathogenetic event in the development of chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN). We investigated the hypothesis that urinary cell mRNA profi ling for the molecular mediators of EMT, allograft fibrosis and tubular atrophy offers a noninvasive means of diagnosing CAN. We used pre-amplification enhanced RT-PCR assay for mRNA profiling of urine samples from 46 renal allograft recipients: 17 with biopsy confi rmed CAN and 29 with stable graft function & normal biopsy. EMT was assessed by measurement of mRNA for αSMA (α smooth muscle actin, myofi broblast marker) and TGFβ1 (inducer of EMT and fibrosis) & tubular integrity by measurement of mRNA for PKD1 (polycystic kidney disease protein expressed in proximal tubular cell), NKCC2 (NaK2Cl transporter expressed in cells of loop of Henle) and USAG (uterine sensitization-associated gene 1 expressed in distal tubular cell)..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thatonekid Posted March 3, 2011 Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 If I understand the OP correctly, you're testing to see whether something is a good diagnostic tool or not. That falls within the definition of a clinical study. It's not about whether you have samples from patients or not that determines if it's a clinical study. It's the purpose of the investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickserve Posted March 3, 2011 Author Report Share Posted March 3, 2011 i would say clinical since there is a gold standard to compare too (biopsy), and your study of the biology would presumably be used for clinical diagnostics in my mind it would be analogous to looking for certain viral/bacterial proteins, glucose and imuno-mediators in a spinal tap to better diagnose something like meningitis, it deals with basic biology but the measure is ultimately clinical. overall though it has elements of both, i'm not sure why you really you have to make a clear distinction Muse: I guess that's my issue - they have elements of both and I'm helping on a research study and I have to look at a bunch of studies and define them on a bunch of criteria - one of them being "clinical" or "basic science". ThatOneKid: I suspect you're ultimately correct. This http://www.nichd.nih.gov/health/clinicalresearch/ seems to agree with you, though I'm not 100% sure. let's say I was using mouse models, with the ultimate purpose of using it for a diagnostic tool on humans - Would you call that a clinical study? Thanks though - I was wondering how people understand the two terms Regardless, I guess I'll just ask the P.I himself what he had in mind - he's the boss. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.