Osteoporosis in men remains a significantly underrecognized condition, with notable differences in bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk between Asian and Western populations. Despite 30% of hip fractures globally occurring in men, they are less likely to be diagnosed or treated for osteoporosis, especially in resource-limited settings. Given these disparities, a deeper understanding of osteoporosis epidemiology and treatment efficacy in men is essential, particularly in Asian populations.This review synthesizes the latest evidence on the epidemiology, screening, and treatment of osteoporosis in men, with a focus on genetic, environmental, and epidemiological disparities between Eastern and Western populations. Additionally, the review examines existing controversies surrounding fracture risk screening in men and evaluates the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, denosumab, and anabolic agents.Asian men exhibit lower peak BMD compared to their Caucasian counterparts, leading to potential misdiagnoses when using Caucasian-based BMD reference ranges. Screening tools like the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX)® show variability in performance across populations. Data on pharmacological treatment in men remain limited, although studies suggest comparable benefits to those observed in women. Larger studies, particularly in male and Asian populations, are urgently needed to refine diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines.Osteoporosis in men is underdiagnosed and undertreated globally, with pronounced disparities between populations. Current diagnostic tools and treatment protocols are not fully tailored to male and Asian populations. There is an urgent need for longitudinal studies focusing on male-specific osteoporosis management to reduce fracture risk and improve outcomes.

Osteoporosis in men remains a significantly underrecognized condition, with notable differences in bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk between Asian and Western populations. Despite 30% of hip fractures globally occurring in men, they are less likely to be diagnosed or treated for osteoporosis, especially in resource-limited settings. Given these disparities, a deeper understanding of osteoporosis epidemiology and treatment efficacy in men is essential, particularly in Asian populations.This review synthesizes the latest evidence on the epidemiology, screening, and treatment of osteoporosis in men, with a focus on genetic, environmental, and epidemiological disparities between Eastern and Western populations. Additionally, the review examines existing controversies surrounding fracture risk screening in men and evaluates the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, denosumab, and anabolic agents.Asian men exhibit lower peak BMD compared to their Caucasian counterparts, leading to potential misdiagnoses when using Caucasian-based BMD reference ranges. Screening tools like the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX)® show variability in performance across populations. Data on pharmacological treatment in men remain limited, although studies suggest comparable benefits to those observed in women. Larger studies, particularly in male and Asian populations, are urgently needed to refine diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines.Osteoporosis in men is underdiagnosed and undertreated globally, with pronounced disparities between populations. Current diagnostic tools and treatment protocols are not fully tailored to male and Asian populations. There is an urgent need for longitudinal studies focusing on male-specific osteoporosis management to reduce fracture risk and improve outcomes.

Osteoporosis in men remains a significantly underrecognized condition, with notable differences in bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk between Asian and Western populations. Despite 30% of hip fractures globally occurring in men, they are less likely to be diagnosed or treated for osteoporosis, especially in resource-limited settings. Given these disparities, a deeper understanding of osteoporosis epidemiology and treatment efficacy in men is essential, particularly in Asian populations.This review synthesizes the latest evidence on the epidemiology, screening, and treatment of osteoporosis in men, with a focus on genetic, environmental, and epidemiological disparities between Eastern and Western populations. Additionally, the review examines existing controversies surrounding fracture risk screening in men and evaluates the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, denosumab, and anabolic agents.Asian men exhibit lower peak BMD compared to their Caucasian counterparts, leading to potential misdiagnoses when using Caucasian-based BMD reference ranges. Screening tools like the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX)® show variability in performance across populations. Data on pharmacological treatment in men remain limited, although studies suggest comparable benefits to those observed in women. Larger studies, particularly in male and Asian populations, are urgently needed to refine diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines.Osteoporosis in men is underdiagnosed and undertreated globally, with pronounced disparities between populations. Current diagnostic tools and treatment protocols are not fully tailored to male and Asian populations. There is an urgent need for longitudinal studies focusing on male-specific osteoporosis management to reduce fracture risk and improve outcomes.

Osteoporosis in men remains a significantly underrecognized condition, with notable differences in bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk between Asian and Western populations. Despite 30% of hip fractures globally occurring in men, they are less likely to be diagnosed or treated for osteoporosis, especially in resource-limited settings. Given these disparities, a deeper understanding of osteoporosis epidemiology and treatment efficacy in men is essential, particularly in Asian populations.This review synthesizes the latest evidence on the epidemiology, screening, and treatment of osteoporosis in men, with a focus on genetic, environmental, and epidemiological disparities between Eastern and Western populations. Additionally, the review examines existing controversies surrounding fracture risk screening in men and evaluates the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, denosumab, and anabolic agents.Asian men exhibit lower peak BMD compared to their Caucasian counterparts, leading to potential misdiagnoses when using Caucasian-based BMD reference ranges. Screening tools like the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX)® show variability in performance across populations. Data on pharmacological treatment in men remain limited, although studies suggest comparable benefits to those observed in women. Larger studies, particularly in male and Asian populations, are urgently needed to refine diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines.Osteoporosis in men is underdiagnosed and undertreated globally, with pronounced disparities between populations. Current diagnostic tools and treatment protocols are not fully tailored to male and Asian populations. There is an urgent need for longitudinal studies focusing on male-specific osteoporosis management to reduce fracture risk and improve outcomes.

Osteoporosis in men remains a significantly underrecognized condition, with notable differences in bone mineral density (BMD) and fracture risk between Asian and Western populations. Despite 30% of hip fractures globally occurring in men, they are less likely to be diagnosed or treated for osteoporosis, especially in resource-limited settings. Given these disparities, a deeper understanding of osteoporosis epidemiology and treatment efficacy in men is essential, particularly in Asian populations.This review synthesizes the latest evidence on the epidemiology, screening, and treatment of osteoporosis in men, with a focus on genetic, environmental, and epidemiological disparities between Eastern and Western populations. Additionally, the review examines existing controversies surrounding fracture risk screening in men and evaluates the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of pharmacological treatments such as bisphosphonates, denosumab, and anabolic agents.Asian men exhibit lower peak BMD compared to their Caucasian counterparts, leading to potential misdiagnoses when using Caucasian-based BMD reference ranges. Screening tools like the Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX)® show variability in performance across populations. Data on pharmacological treatment in men remain limited, although studies suggest comparable benefits to those observed in women. Larger studies, particularly in male and Asian populations, are urgently needed to refine diagnostic and therapeutic guidelines.Osteoporosis in men is underdiagnosed and undertreated globally, with pronounced disparities between populations. Current diagnostic tools and treatment protocols are not fully tailored to male and Asian populations. There is an urgent need for longitudinal studies focusing on male-specific osteoporosis management to reduce fracture risk and improve outcomes.

PURPOSE: Physician empathy is a core attribute in medical professionals, giving better patient outcomes. Medical school is an opportune time for building empathetic foundations. This study explores empathy change and focuses on contributory factors. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional study involving 881 students (63%) from Years 1 to 5 in a Singaporean medical school using the Jefferson Scale of Physician Empathy-Student version (JSPE-S) and a questionnaire investigating the relationship between reported and novel personal-social empathy determinants. RESULTS: Empathy declined significantly between preclinical and clinical years. Female and medical specialty interest respondents had higher scores than their counterparts. Despite strong internal consistency, factor analysis suggested that the JSPE model is not a perfect fit. Year 1 students had highest Perspective Taking scores and Year 2 students had highest Compassionate Care scores. High workload and inappropriate learning environments were the most relevant stressors. Time spent with family, arts, and community service correlated with higher empathy scores, whilst time spent with significant others and individual leisure correlated with lower scores. Thematic analysis revealed that the most common self-reported determinants were exposure to activity (community service) or socialisation, personal and family-related event as well as environment (high work-load). CONCLUSION: While the empathy construct in multicultural Singapore is congruent with a Western model, important differences remain. A more subtle understanding of the heterogeneity of the medical student experience is important. A greater breadth of determinants of empathy, such as engagement in arts-related activities should be considered.
Art ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; *Education, Medical, Undergraduate ; *Empathy ; Factor Analysis, Statistical ; Family ; Female ; Humans ; Male ; Medicine ; *Physician-Patient Relations ; Physicians ; Self Report ; Sex Factors ; Singapore ; Social Participation ; *Students, Medical ; Workload

We report a case of an uncommonly aggressive presentation of the rare entity of synchronous papillary (PTC) and follicular thyroid carcinomas (FTC) in a 67-year-old woman initially presenting with thyrotoxicosis from Graves’ disease. She was found to have two thyroid nodules with extensive intra-cardiac tumour thrombus, symptomatic left pelvis bony metastasis with pathological fracture, pulmonary metastases and mediastinal lymph node metastases. Further investigations suggested a diagnosis of synchronous papillary and metastatic follicular thyroid cancer. Treatment with radical surgery followed by adjuvant therapeutic radioiodine ablation was proposed, but the patient declined all forms of cancer-specific therapy and was elected solely for a palliative approach to treatment. We discuss the diagnostic considerations in arriving at the diagnosis of synchronous thyroid malignancy – in this case the clear features of PTC and the strong probability of FTC due to invasiveness and metastatic follicular lesions. This case underscores potential limitations of the ACR TI-RADS system, notably with certain ultrasonographic features suggesting malignancy that might not be adequately captured. Notably, the aggressive presentation of DTC in this case may be contributed by the concurrent presence of Graves’ Disease, suggesting heightened vigilance when assessing potential thyroid malignancies in such patients.
Papillary Thyroid Carcinoma ; Thyroid Cancer, Papillary ; Follicular Thyroid Carcinoma ; Adenocarcinoma, Follicular ; Graves Disease