Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Objective: We aimed to compare tumor response and treatment outcomes between human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated (HPVA) and HPV-independent (HPVI) endocervical adenocarcinomas (ADCs) treated with definitive concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT) and to identify prognostic factors. Methods: We conducted a retrospective review of 40 patients with endocervical ADCs treated with definitive CCRT (stages I–IVA) between 2011 and 2022. Based on pathological review the cases were categorized as HPVA or HPVI ADCs. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the characteristics, complete response (CR) rates, and survival outcomes. Results: Of 40 patients, 22 (55.0%) had HPVA and 18 (45.0%) had HPVI ADCs. HPVI patients had significantly higher rates of parametrial invasion (94.4% vs. 45.5%, p=0.001). CR was achieved in 57.5% of patients and was significantly more common in the HPVA group (81.8% vs. 27.8%, p=0.001). Patients with HPVI had higher recurrence rates (88.9% vs. 50.0%, p=0.016) and lower 3-year progression-free survival (PFS, 16.7% vs. 49.8%, p=0.001), distant metastasis-free survival (DMFS, 38.1% vs. 80.8%, p=0.001), and overall survival (OS, 42.3% vs. 90.7%, p=0.002) rates. HPVA remained a significant factor for PFS (hazard ratio [HR]=3.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]=1.09–10.81; p=0.035) and OS rates (HR=6.83; 95% CI=1.17–39.80; p=0.033) in multivariate analysis. Conclusion HPVI ADC was associated with a lower response to definitive CCRT and worse prognosis than HPVA ADC. These findings suggest the need for tailored treatment strategies based on the HPV status.

Abdominal actinomycosis is a rare chronic infection caused by Actinomyces species that often mimics advanced intra-abdominal malignancies, making early diagnosis difficult. We report the case of an 82-year-old woman who presented with intermittent left abdominal pain and a palpable mass. Imaging revealed a large pericolic mass with suspected invasion of the stomach and abdominal wall, raising strong suspicion for colon cancer with regional lymph node involvement and possible peritoneal carcinomatosis. Core needle biopsy results suggested an inflammatory myofibroblastic tumor. Because malignancy could not be ruled out, surgical resection—comprising extended left hemicolectomy, gastric wedge resection, and abdominal wall excision—was performed. Histopathological examination demonstrated multiple abscesses containing gram-positive bacilli, consistent with actinomycosis. The patient received high-dose intravenous penicillin followed by prolonged oral therapy and remained symptomfree at the 1-year follow-up. This case underscores the diagnostic challenge of abdominopelvic actinomycosis, particularly when it involves multiple organs and radiologically mimics invasive malignancy. Clinicians should consider this rare entity in the differential diagnosis of tumorlike abdominal lesions, especially when radiologic or endoscopic findings are atypical, to avoid unnecessary aggressive interventions and ensure appropriate management.