Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Background: The purpose of our study was to analyze the effects of hospital volume and region on in-hospital and long-term mortality, direct medical costs (DMCs), and length of hospital stay (LOS) in elderly patients following hip fracture, utilizing nationwide claims data. Methods: This retrospective nationwide study sourced its subjects from the Korean National Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database spanning from January 2011 to December 2018. A generalized estimating equation model with a Poisson distribution and logarithmic link function was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs to assess the association of hospital volume with in-hospital and 1-year mortality, DMCs, and LOS . Results: A total of 172,144 patients were included. Comparing the risk of in-hospital death between high-volume and low-volume hospitals, the risk of in-hospital death was 1.2 times higher at low-volume hospitals (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.07–1.33; p = 0.002).Additionally, the risk of death at 1 year was 1.05 times higher at low-volume hospitals (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01–1.09; p = 0.008) compared to high-volume hospitals. DMCs were 0.84 times lower at low-volume hospitals for in-hospital period (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.84–0.85; p < 0.001) and 0.87 times lower for 1 year (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.86–0.88; p < 0.001) compared to high-volume hospitals. In-hospital LOS was 1.21 times longer at low-volume hospitals (aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.20–1.22; p < 0.001) than at high-volume hospitals. In addition, the risk of in-hospital death was 1.22 times higher (aOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12–1.33; p < 0.001) and the risk of 1-year death was 1.07 times higher (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04–1.10; p < 0.001) at rural hospitals compared to urban hospitals. Conclusions Clinicians should focus on improving clinical outcomes for hip fracture patients in low-volume and rural hospital settings, with a specific emphasis on reducing mortality rates.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop an approach to alleviate the discomfort caused by sandbag compression after a bone marrow examination. This research examined the effects of applying a pressure hemostasis band on bleeding, pain, and discomfort at the bone marrow examination site. Methods: This study was conducted with a nonequivalent control group non-synchronized design. For 74 patients under evaluation who underwent bone marrow examination, sandbag compression was applied to the examination site in the control group (n=37), and a pressure hemostasis band was applied to the intervention group (n=37). In both groups, absolute bed rest was performed for two hours, and bleeding, pain, and discomfort at the examination site were measured. Results: After two hours of the bone marrow examination, there was no difference in bleeding on the gauze between the two groups (F=0.59, p=.444). Bleeding occurred in three patients in the intervention group and six in the control group (χ 2 =1.14, p=.479), with no cases of hematoma detected in either group. One hour post-examination, the control group experienced significantly higher pain (F=5.45, p=.022) and discomfort (F=5.68, p=.020) than the intervention group. However, pain and discomfort levels were similar between groups after two hours. Conclusion Compared to the sandbag compression group, the band application group showed no difference in bleeding and experienced less pain and discomfort at the examination site. This confirms that the pressure hemostasis band is a suitable alternative to sandbag compression in post-examination care.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Background: The purpose of our study was to analyze the effects of hospital volume and region on in-hospital and long-term mortality, direct medical costs (DMCs), and length of hospital stay (LOS) in elderly patients following hip fracture, utilizing nationwide claims data. Methods: This retrospective nationwide study sourced its subjects from the Korean National Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database spanning from January 2011 to December 2018. A generalized estimating equation model with a Poisson distribution and logarithmic link function was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs to assess the association of hospital volume with in-hospital and 1-year mortality, DMCs, and LOS . Results: A total of 172,144 patients were included. Comparing the risk of in-hospital death between high-volume and low-volume hospitals, the risk of in-hospital death was 1.2 times higher at low-volume hospitals (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.07–1.33; p = 0.002).Additionally, the risk of death at 1 year was 1.05 times higher at low-volume hospitals (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01–1.09; p = 0.008) compared to high-volume hospitals. DMCs were 0.84 times lower at low-volume hospitals for in-hospital period (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.84–0.85; p < 0.001) and 0.87 times lower for 1 year (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.86–0.88; p < 0.001) compared to high-volume hospitals. In-hospital LOS was 1.21 times longer at low-volume hospitals (aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.20–1.22; p < 0.001) than at high-volume hospitals. In addition, the risk of in-hospital death was 1.22 times higher (aOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12–1.33; p < 0.001) and the risk of 1-year death was 1.07 times higher (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04–1.10; p < 0.001) at rural hospitals compared to urban hospitals. Conclusions Clinicians should focus on improving clinical outcomes for hip fracture patients in low-volume and rural hospital settings, with a specific emphasis on reducing mortality rates.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop an approach to alleviate the discomfort caused by sandbag compression after a bone marrow examination. This research examined the effects of applying a pressure hemostasis band on bleeding, pain, and discomfort at the bone marrow examination site. Methods: This study was conducted with a nonequivalent control group non-synchronized design. For 74 patients under evaluation who underwent bone marrow examination, sandbag compression was applied to the examination site in the control group (n=37), and a pressure hemostasis band was applied to the intervention group (n=37). In both groups, absolute bed rest was performed for two hours, and bleeding, pain, and discomfort at the examination site were measured. Results: After two hours of the bone marrow examination, there was no difference in bleeding on the gauze between the two groups (F=0.59, p=.444). Bleeding occurred in three patients in the intervention group and six in the control group (χ 2 =1.14, p=.479), with no cases of hematoma detected in either group. One hour post-examination, the control group experienced significantly higher pain (F=5.45, p=.022) and discomfort (F=5.68, p=.020) than the intervention group. However, pain and discomfort levels were similar between groups after two hours. Conclusion Compared to the sandbag compression group, the band application group showed no difference in bleeding and experienced less pain and discomfort at the examination site. This confirms that the pressure hemostasis band is a suitable alternative to sandbag compression in post-examination care.

Background: The purpose of our study was to analyze the effects of hospital volume and region on in-hospital and long-term mortality, direct medical costs (DMCs), and length of hospital stay (LOS) in elderly patients following hip fracture, utilizing nationwide claims data. Methods: This retrospective nationwide study sourced its subjects from the Korean National Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database spanning from January 2011 to December 2018. A generalized estimating equation model with a Poisson distribution and logarithmic link function was used to estimate adjusted odds ratios (aORs) and 95% CIs to assess the association of hospital volume with in-hospital and 1-year mortality, DMCs, and LOS . Results: A total of 172,144 patients were included. Comparing the risk of in-hospital death between high-volume and low-volume hospitals, the risk of in-hospital death was 1.2 times higher at low-volume hospitals (aOR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.07–1.33; p = 0.002).Additionally, the risk of death at 1 year was 1.05 times higher at low-volume hospitals (aOR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.01–1.09; p = 0.008) compared to high-volume hospitals. DMCs were 0.84 times lower at low-volume hospitals for in-hospital period (aOR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.84–0.85; p < 0.001) and 0.87 times lower for 1 year (aOR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.86–0.88; p < 0.001) compared to high-volume hospitals. In-hospital LOS was 1.21 times longer at low-volume hospitals (aOR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.20–1.22; p < 0.001) than at high-volume hospitals. In addition, the risk of in-hospital death was 1.22 times higher (aOR, 1.22; 95% CI, 1.12–1.33; p < 0.001) and the risk of 1-year death was 1.07 times higher (aOR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.04–1.10; p < 0.001) at rural hospitals compared to urban hospitals. Conclusions Clinicians should focus on improving clinical outcomes for hip fracture patients in low-volume and rural hospital settings, with a specific emphasis on reducing mortality rates.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to develop an approach to alleviate the discomfort caused by sandbag compression after a bone marrow examination. This research examined the effects of applying a pressure hemostasis band on bleeding, pain, and discomfort at the bone marrow examination site. Methods: This study was conducted with a nonequivalent control group non-synchronized design. For 74 patients under evaluation who underwent bone marrow examination, sandbag compression was applied to the examination site in the control group (n=37), and a pressure hemostasis band was applied to the intervention group (n=37). In both groups, absolute bed rest was performed for two hours, and bleeding, pain, and discomfort at the examination site were measured. Results: After two hours of the bone marrow examination, there was no difference in bleeding on the gauze between the two groups (F=0.59, p=.444). Bleeding occurred in three patients in the intervention group and six in the control group (χ 2 =1.14, p=.479), with no cases of hematoma detected in either group. One hour post-examination, the control group experienced significantly higher pain (F=5.45, p=.022) and discomfort (F=5.68, p=.020) than the intervention group. However, pain and discomfort levels were similar between groups after two hours. Conclusion Compared to the sandbag compression group, the band application group showed no difference in bleeding and experienced less pain and discomfort at the examination site. This confirms that the pressure hemostasis band is a suitable alternative to sandbag compression in post-examination care.