Purpose: This study was aimed to investigate the changes in pediatric injury-related visits at an emergency department (ED) during coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Methods: We retrospectively compared injury-related visits to an ED in Korea by children aged 15 years or younger during February 2020-December 2021 (pandemic period), and the visits during February 2018-December 2019. Clinical characteristics, injury mechanisms, diagnostic codes, and ED outcomes were noted. We performed 2 sub-analyses of the pandemic period: biannual changes in the visits, and monthly trends of proportions of concussion and superficial injury as diagnostic codes using linear regression. Results: Despite a 51.2% reduction in injury-related visits during the pandemic, the proportion of the visits increased (25.2% vs. 40.0%; P < 0.001). Overall, increases were noted in proportions of use of emergency medical services and high acuity (P < 0.001). Among the diagnostic codes, brain injuries, fracture and dislocation, and laceration increased while superficial injuries, burn, intoxication, and foreign body ingestion decreased (P < 0.001). As the pandemic prolonged, injury-to-ED time shortened and ED length of stay lengthened while the abovementioned trends remained unchanged. Linear regression showed that the proportions of concussion and superficial injury respectively increased and decreased by 0.01% per month (P < 0.001). Conclusion The changes in pediatric injury-related visits at the ED during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic may serve as a basis for distributing emergency medicine resources in future infectious disease outbreaks.

Objective: The purpose of this study is to report the activities of Disaster Medical Assistance Team and national emergency medical center in the fire at a women’s hospital on December 14, 2019, and to suggest an improvement plan for the special disastrous situation. Methods: We reviewed the transfer records of national emergency medical center, medical records of regional emergency medical center, and records of each patient’s prognosis of the women’s hospital, retrospectively. Triage of casualties was conducted according to SALT (Sort, Assess, Lifesaving Interventions, Treatment/Transport) method. Results: The fire was extinguished early and there was no victim with significant carbon monoxide intoxication. Among 228 casualties, there were 143 patients of the women’s hospital. Two patients were classified as immediate, 55 patients including pregnant women, newborns, and mothers were classified as delayed, and 171 casualties including newborns and mothers were classified as minimal. Among 66 newborns, 40 newborns were transferred to the regional Emergency Medical Center, and a second triage was conducted by doctors there. Conclusion Although there was no significant victim, physically and socially susceptible people such as pregnant women, newborns, and mothers were included in this accident. We recommend establishing a standard of disaster response for special population and improving our capability at a national level.

Background/Aims: The aim of this study was to compare antimicrobial resistance, clinical features, and outcomes of community-onset Escherichia coli (COEC) and Klebsiella pneumoniae (COKP) bacteremia. Methods: The medical records of patients diagnosed with E. coli or K. pneumoniae bacteremia in the emergency department of a 750-bed secondary care hospital in Daegu, Korea from January 2010 to December 2016 were retrospectively reviewed. Results: A total of 866 patients with COEC bacteremia and 299 with COKP bacteremia were enrolled. COEC bacteremia, compared to COKP bacteremia, had higher rates of 3rd generation cephalosporin (3GC) (18.8% vs. 8.4%, p < 0.001) and f luoroquinolone (FQ) (30.4% vs. 8.0%, p < 0.001) resistance. The patients with COKP bacteremia had higher Charlson comorbidity indices (CCI) (1.8 ± 2.0 vs. 1.5 ± 1.8, p = 0.035), Pittsburgh bacteremia scores (PBS) (2.0 ± 2.6 vs. 1.3 ± 1.8, p < 0.001), and 30-day mortality (14.44% vs. 8.8%, p = 0.008) than the patients with COEC bacteremia. Age younger than 70 years, male sex, polymicrobial infections, pneumonia, intra-abdominal infection, PBS ≥ 2, and Foley catheter insertion were independent predictive factors for COKP bacteremia compared to COEC bacteremia in the multivariate analysis. CCI, PBS, and intensive care unit admission were independent risk factors for 30-day mortality in the multivariate analysis. Conclusions 3GCs and FQs are still useful for the empirical treatment of patients with probable COKP bacteremia. The patients with COKP bacteremia had worse outcomes because of its greater severity and more frequent underlying comorbidities.

Human Papillomavirus (HPV) infection is known as the main factor for cervical cancer which is a leading cause of cancer deaths in women worldwide. Because there are more than 100 types in HPV, it is critical to discriminate the HPVs related with cervical cancer from those not related with it. In this paper, the risk type of HPVs using their textual explanation. The important issue in this problem is to distinguish false negatives from false positives. That is, we must find high-risk HPVs as many as possible though we may miss some low-risk HPVs. For this purpose, the AdaCost, a cost-sensitive learner is adopted to consider different costs between training examples. The experimental results on the HPV sequence database show that the consideration of costs gives higher performance. The improvement in F-score is higher than that of the accuracy, which implies that the number of high-risk HPVs found is increased.
Classification* ; Data Mining* ; Female ; Humans* ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms

Purpose: Globally, concerns have grown regarding the long-term effects of novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) infection. Therefore, we evaluated the long-term course of persistent symptoms and patient quality of life. Materials and Methods: This prospective cohort study was conducted at a single tertiary university hospital from August 31, 2020 to March 29, 2021 with adult patients followed at 6 and 12 months after acute COVID-19 symptom onset or diagnosis. Clinical characteristics, self-reported symptoms, EuroQol 5 dimension 5 level (EQ5D-5L) index scores, Korean version of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9), Korean version of the Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Checklist-5 (PCL-5-K), and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7) were investigated. Symptom persistent or non-persistent groups were defined according to persistency of COVID-19 related symptoms or signs after acute COVID-19 infection, respectively. Results: Of all 235 patients, 170 (64.6%) patients were eligible for analysis. The median age was 51 (interquartile range, 37–61) years old, and 102 patients were female (60.0%). After 12 months from acute COVID-19 infection, in total, 83 (48.8%) patients still suffered from COVID-19-related symptoms. The most common symptoms included amnesia (24.1%), insomnia (14.7%), fatigue (13.5%), and anxiety (12.9%). Among the five EQ5D-5L categories, the average value of anxiety or depression was the most predominant. PHQ-9 and PCL-5-K scores were statistically higher in the COVID-19–related symptom persistent group than the non-persistent group (p=0.001). However, GAD-7 scores showed no statistical differences between the two groups (p=0.051). Conclusion Neuropsychiatric symptoms were the major COVID-19–related symptoms after 12 months from acute COVID-19 infection, reducing quality of life.

Purpose: This study aimed to evaluate and compare the quality of total mesorectal excision (TME) and disease-free and overall survival rates between robotic and laparoscopic surgeries for rectal cancer. Methods: From January 2015 to December 2018, 234 patients underwent curative robotic or laparoscopic surgery for rectal cancer at two centers. Ultimately, 201 patients were enrolled. To control for different demographic factors in the two groups, propensity score matching was used at a 1:1 ratio. Propensity scores were generated with the baseline characteristics, including age, sex, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists score, previous abdominal surgery, tumor location, preoperative chemotherapy, and preoperative radiation. Finally, 134 patients were matched with 67 patients in the robotic surgery group and 67 patients in the laparoscopic surgery group. Results: There was no significant difference in the pathologic stages between the robotic and laparoscopic surgery groups. Distal margin involvement was only observed in the robotic surgery group (1/67, 1.5%). Circumferential resection margin involvement was not different between the robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery groups (3/67 [4.5%] and 4/67 [6.0%], respectively, P = 1.000). The quality of TME (complete, nearly complete, and incomplete) was similar between the robotic surgery and laparoscopic surgery groups (88.0%, 6.0%, 6.0% and 79.1%, 9.0%, 11.9%, respectively, P = 0.358). The disease-free and overall survival rates were not significantly different between the groups. Conclusion The quality of TME and disease-free and overall survival rates between the two surgeries were similar. There was no oncologic advantage of robotic surgery for rectal cancer compared to laparoscopic surgery.

Purpose: We aimed to develop a novel mortality scoring system for inpatients with COVID-19 based on simple demographic factors and laboratory findings. Materials and Methods: We reviewed and analyzed data from patients who were admitted and diagnosed with COVID-19 at 10 hospitals in Daegu, South Korea, between January and July 2020. We randomized and assigned patients to the development and validation groups at a 70% to 30% ratio. Each point scored for selected risk factors helped build a new mortality scoring system using Cox regression analysis. We evaluated the accuracy of the new scoring system in the development and validation groups using the area under the curve. Results: The development group included 1232 patients, whereas the validation group included 528 patients. In the development group, predictors for the new scoring system as selected by Cox proportional hazards model were age ≥70 years, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, dementia, C-reactive protein levels >4 mg/dL, infiltration on chest X-rays at the initial diagnosis, and the need for oxygen support on admission. The areas under the curve for the development and validation groups were 0.914 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.891–0.937] and 0.898 (95% CI 0.854–0.941), respectively. According to our scoring system, COVID-19 mortality was 0.4% for the low-risk group (score 0–3) and 53.7% for the very high-risk group (score ≥11). Conclusion We developed a new scoring system for quickly and easily predicting COVID-19 mortality using simple predictors. This scoring system can help physicians provide the proper therapy and strategy for each patient.

Purpose: We aimed to develop a novel mortality scoring system for inpatients with COVID-19 based on simple demographic factors and laboratory findings. Materials and Methods: We reviewed and analyzed data from patients who were admitted and diagnosed with COVID-19 at 10 hospitals in Daegu, South Korea, between January and July 2020. We randomized and assigned patients to the development and validation groups at a 70% to 30% ratio. Each point scored for selected risk factors helped build a new mortality scoring system using Cox regression analysis. We evaluated the accuracy of the new scoring system in the development and validation groups using the area under the curve. Results: The development group included 1232 patients, whereas the validation group included 528 patients. In the development group, predictors for the new scoring system as selected by Cox proportional hazards model were age ≥70 years, diabetes, chronic kidney disease, dementia, C-reactive protein levels >4 mg/dL, infiltration on chest X-rays at the initial diagnosis, and the need for oxygen support on admission. The areas under the curve for the development and validation groups were 0.914 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.891–0.937] and 0.898 (95% CI 0.854–0.941), respectively. According to our scoring system, COVID-19 mortality was 0.4% for the low-risk group (score 0–3) and 53.7% for the very high-risk group (score ≥11). Conclusion We developed a new scoring system for quickly and easily predicting COVID-19 mortality using simple predictors. This scoring system can help physicians provide the proper therapy and strategy for each patient.