JYJing Yang

Jing Yang

*This is an algorithmically generated author record based on publicly available information.

Current Organizations / Institutes

The organizations/institutes from the scholar's latest article


Jing Yang has a total of 16 co-authors. Here are the top co-authors by number of shared publications:


Latest Publications

  • MELTF Drives Lung Cancer Progression and Angiogenesis via HIF‐1α‐Mediated Activation of the VEGF Signaling Pathway

    by Yan Teng, Jin Cao, Shuangyi Lei, Dairong Li, Jing Yang

    Lung cancer remains the leading cause of cancer‐related mortality globally. Melanotransferrin (MELTF) is an oncogene overexpressed in multiple cancer types. Preliminary reports link MELTF to lung cancer progression, but its precise regulatory mechanisms remain undefined. This study aimed to elucidate MELTF's functional role in lung cancer and its underlying molecular pathways. Bioinformatic analyses and clinical tissue microarray assessments were first integrated to characterize MELTF's prognostic relevance. MELTF expression was quantified in cell lines and mouse models via quantitative real‐time PCR (qRT‐PCR) and Western blot. Cellular functional assays (CCK‐8, colony formation, wound healing, transwell, flow cytometry, and tube formation) were employed to evaluate MELTF's impact on lung cancer cell malignant behaviors. Furthermore, the role of MELTF in vivo was validated in NSG mice models. Clinical tissue microarrays and qRT‐PCR revealed MELTF overexpression in lung cancer tissues and cell lines, respectively. MELTF knockdown suppressed proliferation and migration while enhancing apoptosis in A549 and NCI‐H1299 cells. In vivo mouse experiments and in vitro cell‐based assays collectively demonstrated that MELTF promoted lung cancer progression by activating the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) pathway, with hypoxia‐inducible factor‐1α (HIF‐1α) serving as a key mediator of this regulatory axis. MELTF drove lung cancer progression by activating the VEGF signaling pathway via HIF‐1α, identifying MELTF as a promising therapeutic target for lung cancer.

  • Open Access

    Efficacy of Ultrasound‐Guided Tibial Nerve Block Combined With Shock Wave in the Treatment of Plantar Fasciitis: A Retrospective Cohort Study

    by Guanghui Zhang, Xin Yao, Zhiji Chen, Kai Luo, Zelin Weng, Shaofang Cai, Guanjin Luo, Meisu Lin, Lifang Lu, Jing Yang

    Objective: To evaluate the effectiveness of ultrasound‐guided tibial nerve block (TNB) with extracorporeal shock wave therapy (ESWT) versus ESWT alone or ESWT with fascial injection (FI) in plantar fasciitis (PF) of various courses. Methods: This retrospective cohort study enrolled 209 PF patients (101 acute, 108 chronic), categorized into three groups: ESWT alone (Group A), ESWT‐FI (Group B), and ESWT‐TNB (Group C). Pain intensity and foot function were assessed via visual analogue scale (VAS) and American Orthopaedic Foot‐Ankle Society (AOFAS) scores at baseline and 1‐, 3‐, and 6‐month follow‐ups. Subgroup analysis was performed stratified by calcaneal spur size. Multiple linear regression was applied to identify independent predictors of pain relief, and subgroup analysis stratified by calcaneal spur size was further performed to characterize treatment response across spur‐length strata. Results: For acute PF, Groups B/C yielded lower 1‐month VAS vs A (mean difference = 1.094, 95% CI 0.759–1.429, p < 0.001; mean difference = 1.414, 95% CI 1.088–1.739, p < 0.001), with no intergroup differences at 6 months (all p > 0.05). In chronic PF, Groups B/C maintained superior VAS/AOFAS improvements at all timepoints; and Group C showed the largest 1‐month VAS reduction vs A (mean difference = 2.998, 95% CI 2.662–3.333, p < 0.001). Regression identified calcaneal spur length as an independent negative predictor of pain relief (standardized β = −0.166, 95%CI −0.090−0.031, p < 0.001). Subgroup analysis revealed Group C optimal for spurs < 2.5 mm, comparable efficacy of B/C for 2.5–5 mm spurs, and superior ΔVAS in Group B for spurs > 5 mm. Only two transient heel numbness and five transient post‐ESWT pain flares occurred, without severe adverse events. Conclusion: For chronic PF, ESWT combined with interventional therapy (especially TNB) provides greater clinical benefit. Heel spur length can serve as a predictor to guide individualized combination therapy (fascial injection or nerve block).

  • Open Access

    Advantages of Blunt Radiofrequency Needles in CT‐Guided Dorsal Root Ganglion Pulsed Radiofrequency for the Treatment of Zoster‐Associated Pain

    by Guanghui Zhang, Jing Yang, Xin Yao, Kai Luo, Zhiji Chen, Shuxiu Feng, Chunfang Wang, Xiaolan Gao, Zelin Weng

    Objective: Compare the clinical efficacy of CT‐guided blunt versus sharp needles for dorsal root ganglion‐pulsed radiofrequency (DRG‐PRF) in treating zoster‐associated pain (ZAP). Method: This retrospective study analyzed 70 ZAP patients receiving CT‐guided DRG‐PRF between January 2021 and December 2024. Participants were divided into the blunt needle group (BNG, n = 30) and the sharp needle group (SNG, n = 40). Evaluated endpoints encompassed SF‐MPQ scores, postoperative analgesia use, intraprocedural trajectory pain (NRS), operative time, number of CT scan slices, and incidence of complications. Result: The BN group showed lower puncture NRS scores, shorter operative time, and fewer CT scan layers than the SN group ( p < 0.05). SF‐MPQ scores (PRI, VAS, and PPI) decreased in both groups postoperatively ( p < 0.05), with lower PRI and PPI in the BN group at Day 1, Week 1, and Months 1 and 3 ( p < 0.05). Pregabalin use was lower in the BN group at Months 3 and 6, and tramadol use was lower at Week 1 and Month 1 ( p < 0.05). Conclusion: CT‐guided DRG‐PRF demonstrates good analgesic efficacy in the treatment of ZAP. Compared with sharp needles, blunt needles show superior performance in terms of intraoperative puncture pain, procedure duration, radiation exposure, and postoperative medication use. As an optimized puncture instrument for DRG‐PRF, the blunt needle holds promise for broader clinical application and warrants further promotion. Trial Registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Registry: ChiCTR2500102560