RESUMEN
This study was conducted to examine the effects of agricultural subsidies on the technical efficiency of agricultural production technology and on factor input. It utilized a random frontier production function, instrumental variable method, and threshold regression model. The data used for this analysis consisted of 609 field yield measurements from the National Rapeseed Industry Technology System in 2020. The findings indicate that agricultural subsidies have a substantial impacts and it increases the technical efficiency of production process. Specifically, these subsidies encourage the use of land resources while inhibiting the use of chemical fertilizers. However, this does not have a significant effect on the utilization of labor and capital resources. Furthermore, the impact of agricultural subsidies on production technology efficiency varies depending on the scale of the farming operation. The subsidies significantly enhance the production technology efficiency of farmers with a business scale of less than 0.67 ha, but do not significantly improve the production technology efficiency of farmers with a business scale exceeding 0.67 ha. To optimize the effectiveness of agricultural subsidy policy, three methods and recommendations are proposed: increasing the overall amount of subsidies, expanding and diversifying the types of subsidies, and refining the process of disbursing subsidies.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Serum high mobility group box 1 (HMGB1) serves as a diagnostic biomarker for malignant peritoneal mesothelioma (MPM) patients, yet its diagnostic significance within MPM tumor tissues remains uncertain. This study aims to elucidate the roles of HMGB1 in MPM. METHODS: HMGB1 expression analysis was conducted in both tumor and adjacent non-cancerous tissues collected from MPM patients. The two-year follow-up of MPM patients commenced from the diagnosis date. Inflammatory cytokine analysis was performed on these tissues, and Pearson correlation coefficient analysis was applied to examine variable relationships. In vitro assays included constructing an HMGB1 knockdown cell line, assessing cell viability, apoptosis, and inflammatory cytokine levels to delineate HMGB1's roles in MPM. RESULTS: HMGB1 overexpression was observed in MPM tumor tissues, particularly in stages III-IV. Diagnostic implications of HMGB1 for MPM were evident, augmenting its diagnostic value. HMGB1 overexpression correlated with diminished survival rates. Positive correlations existed between inflammatory cytokines and HMGB1 in MPM tumor tissues and cell lines. Suppression of HMGB1 regulated cell growth and apoptosis in MPM cell lines. CONCLUSION: HMGB1 exhibits diagnostic potential for MPM and modulates inflammatory responses within the disease context.
