Purpose: This study aims to evaluate a new method for the five times sit to stand test (FTSST), crucial for addressing frailty in an aging population. It utilizes a smart insole for plantar pressure analysis and a marker-less motion capture device for head height analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five participants aged 50 years or older underwent FTSST assessment using three methods: manual measurement with a stopwatch (FTSST-M), plantar pressure analysis with smart insoles (FTSST-P), and head height analysis with a marker-less motion capture device (FTSST-H). Simultaneous measurements using three methods were done. Correlation between results of these methods were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ coefficient. Comprehensive clinical examinations were conducted with ethical approval. Results: Participants’ mean scores for FTSST-M, FTSST-P, and FTSST-H were 2.43±1.20, 2.43±1.29, and 2.37±1.31, respectively. Correlations of the times and corresponding scores between FTSST-P and FTSST-M, as well as FTSST-H and FTSST-M, exceeded 0.9 (ICC and κ coefficients, p<0.001). Using an FTSST score of 3 or less to indicate vulnerability, the κ value for vulnerability classification between two measurements was 0.886 (p<0.001). Conclusion This study showed strong correlation between FTSST results using smart insoles and marker-less motion capture, compared to conventional methods. These findings highlight the potential of these technologies for precise FTSST measurements, offering convenience and cost-effectiveness. Simultaneous use of these devices enables diverse analyses, enhancing our understanding of frailty.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate a new method for the five times sit to stand test (FTSST), crucial for addressing frailty in an aging population. It utilizes a smart insole for plantar pressure analysis and a marker-less motion capture device for head height analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five participants aged 50 years or older underwent FTSST assessment using three methods: manual measurement with a stopwatch (FTSST-M), plantar pressure analysis with smart insoles (FTSST-P), and head height analysis with a marker-less motion capture device (FTSST-H). Simultaneous measurements using three methods were done. Correlation between results of these methods were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ coefficient. Comprehensive clinical examinations were conducted with ethical approval. Results: Participants’ mean scores for FTSST-M, FTSST-P, and FTSST-H were 2.43±1.20, 2.43±1.29, and 2.37±1.31, respectively. Correlations of the times and corresponding scores between FTSST-P and FTSST-M, as well as FTSST-H and FTSST-M, exceeded 0.9 (ICC and κ coefficients, p<0.001). Using an FTSST score of 3 or less to indicate vulnerability, the κ value for vulnerability classification between two measurements was 0.886 (p<0.001). Conclusion This study showed strong correlation between FTSST results using smart insoles and marker-less motion capture, compared to conventional methods. These findings highlight the potential of these technologies for precise FTSST measurements, offering convenience and cost-effectiveness. Simultaneous use of these devices enables diverse analyses, enhancing our understanding of frailty.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate a new method for the five times sit to stand test (FTSST), crucial for addressing frailty in an aging population. It utilizes a smart insole for plantar pressure analysis and a marker-less motion capture device for head height analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five participants aged 50 years or older underwent FTSST assessment using three methods: manual measurement with a stopwatch (FTSST-M), plantar pressure analysis with smart insoles (FTSST-P), and head height analysis with a marker-less motion capture device (FTSST-H). Simultaneous measurements using three methods were done. Correlation between results of these methods were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ coefficient. Comprehensive clinical examinations were conducted with ethical approval. Results: Participants’ mean scores for FTSST-M, FTSST-P, and FTSST-H were 2.43±1.20, 2.43±1.29, and 2.37±1.31, respectively. Correlations of the times and corresponding scores between FTSST-P and FTSST-M, as well as FTSST-H and FTSST-M, exceeded 0.9 (ICC and κ coefficients, p<0.001). Using an FTSST score of 3 or less to indicate vulnerability, the κ value for vulnerability classification between two measurements was 0.886 (p<0.001). Conclusion This study showed strong correlation between FTSST results using smart insoles and marker-less motion capture, compared to conventional methods. These findings highlight the potential of these technologies for precise FTSST measurements, offering convenience and cost-effectiveness. Simultaneous use of these devices enables diverse analyses, enhancing our understanding of frailty.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate a new method for the five times sit to stand test (FTSST), crucial for addressing frailty in an aging population. It utilizes a smart insole for plantar pressure analysis and a marker-less motion capture device for head height analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five participants aged 50 years or older underwent FTSST assessment using three methods: manual measurement with a stopwatch (FTSST-M), plantar pressure analysis with smart insoles (FTSST-P), and head height analysis with a marker-less motion capture device (FTSST-H). Simultaneous measurements using three methods were done. Correlation between results of these methods were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ coefficient. Comprehensive clinical examinations were conducted with ethical approval. Results: Participants’ mean scores for FTSST-M, FTSST-P, and FTSST-H were 2.43±1.20, 2.43±1.29, and 2.37±1.31, respectively. Correlations of the times and corresponding scores between FTSST-P and FTSST-M, as well as FTSST-H and FTSST-M, exceeded 0.9 (ICC and κ coefficients, p<0.001). Using an FTSST score of 3 or less to indicate vulnerability, the κ value for vulnerability classification between two measurements was 0.886 (p<0.001). Conclusion This study showed strong correlation between FTSST results using smart insoles and marker-less motion capture, compared to conventional methods. These findings highlight the potential of these technologies for precise FTSST measurements, offering convenience and cost-effectiveness. Simultaneous use of these devices enables diverse analyses, enhancing our understanding of frailty.

Purpose: This study aims to evaluate a new method for the five times sit to stand test (FTSST), crucial for addressing frailty in an aging population. It utilizes a smart insole for plantar pressure analysis and a marker-less motion capture device for head height analysis. Materials and Methods: Thirty-five participants aged 50 years or older underwent FTSST assessment using three methods: manual measurement with a stopwatch (FTSST-M), plantar pressure analysis with smart insoles (FTSST-P), and head height analysis with a marker-less motion capture device (FTSST-H). Simultaneous measurements using three methods were done. Correlation between results of these methods were analyzed using intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) and κ coefficient. Comprehensive clinical examinations were conducted with ethical approval. Results: Participants’ mean scores for FTSST-M, FTSST-P, and FTSST-H were 2.43±1.20, 2.43±1.29, and 2.37±1.31, respectively. Correlations of the times and corresponding scores between FTSST-P and FTSST-M, as well as FTSST-H and FTSST-M, exceeded 0.9 (ICC and κ coefficients, p<0.001). Using an FTSST score of 3 or less to indicate vulnerability, the κ value for vulnerability classification between two measurements was 0.886 (p<0.001). Conclusion This study showed strong correlation between FTSST results using smart insoles and marker-less motion capture, compared to conventional methods. These findings highlight the potential of these technologies for precise FTSST measurements, offering convenience and cost-effectiveness. Simultaneous use of these devices enables diverse analyses, enhancing our understanding of frailty.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.

This research group (forensic research via omics markers in environmental health vulnerable areas: FROM) aimed to develop biomarkers for exposure to environmental hazards and diseases, assess environmental diseases, and apply and verify these biomarkers in environmentally vulnerable areas. Environmentally vulnerable areas—including refineries, abandoned metal mines, coal-fired power plants, waste incinerators, cement factories, and areas with high exposure to particulate matter—along with control areas, were selected for epidemiological investigations. A total of 1,157 adults, who had resided in these areas for over 10 years, were recruited between June 2021 and September 2023. Personal characteristics of the study participants were gathered through a survey. Biological samples, specifically blood and urine, were collected during the field investigations, separated under refrigerated conditions, and then transported to the laboratory for biomarker analysis. Analyses of heavy metals, environmental hazards, and adducts were conducted on these blood and urine samples. Additionally, omics analyses of epigenomes, proteomes, and metabolomes were performed using the blood samples. The biomarkers identified in this study will be utilized to assess the risk of environmental disease occurrence and to evaluate the impact on the health of residents in environmentally vulnerable areas, following the validation of diagnostic accuracy for these diseases.

Background and Objectives: Lipid lowering therapy is essential to reduce the risk of major cardiovascular events; however, limited evidence exists regarding the use of statin with ezetimibe as primary prevention strategy for middle-aged adults. We aimed to investigate the impact of single pill combination therapy on clinical outcomes in relatively healthy middleaged patients when compared with statin monotherapy. Methods: Using the Korean National Health Insurance Service database, a propensity score match analysis was performed for baseline characteristics of 92,156 patients categorized into combination therapy (n=46,078) and statin monotherapy (n=46,078) groups. Primary outcome was composite outcomes, including death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke. And secondary outcome was all-cause death. The mean follow-up duration was 2.9±0.3 years. Results: The 3-year composite outcomes of all-cause death, coronary artery disease, and ischemic stroke demonstrated no significant difference between the 2 groups (10.3% vs.10.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.022; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.980–1.064; p=0.309).Meanwhile, the 3-year all-cause death rate was lower in the combination therapy group than in the statin monotherapy group (0.2% vs. 0.4%; p<0.001), with a significant HR of 0.595 (95% CI, 0.460–0.769; p<0.001). Single pill combination therapy exhibited consistently lower mortality rates across various subgroups. Conclusions Compared to the statin monotherapy, the combination therapy for primary prevention showed no difference in composite outcomes but may reduce mortality risk in relatively healthy middle-aged patients. However, since the study was observational, further randomized clinical trials are needed to confirm these findings.