Background/Aims: Data from Asia regarding the short-term and long-term outcomes for acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) are limited. We assessed the outcomes of ASUC, identified the risk factors for colectomy, and compared colectomy rates between the pre-biologics and post-biologics eras in Taiwan. Methods: The patients with an ASUC diagnosis between January 2013 and March 2022 at 5 tertiary medical centers were retrospectively analyzed. Results: In total, 98 patients were enrolled, with 68.4% diagnosed in the post-biologics era. In 78.6% of the ASUC patients initially received intravenous steroid therapy, for which the success rate was 74.1%. As for rescue therapy, 15 patients (93.8%) received biologics and 1 (6.3%) received cyclosporin. Biologics rescue therapy had a 93.3% success rate. One (1%) mortality due to septic shock occurred. The colectomy rate for index ASUC admission was 11.2%. Patients receiving colectomy were predominantly male (P= 0.012) and at older age (P= 0.016). Higher C-reactive protein (P= 0.035), lower albumin (P= 0.017), and hemoglobin (P= 0.023) levels were associated with colectomy risk. During a median follow-up of 24 months, 13 patients (15.1%) had recurrent ASUC and 23.1% of patients received colectomy. The accumulated colectomy rate at 3 years did not differ between the pre- and post-biologics eras (16.1% vs. 13.4%, P= 0.270). Conclusions This is the first Asian study on ASUC to compare colectomy rates between the prebiologics and post-biologics eras, revealing no significant difference. The recurrent ASUC had a higher colectomy rate than the index ASUC.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

OBJECTIVE: Burning solid cooking fuel contributes to household air pollution and is associated with frailty. However, how solid cooking fuel use contributes to the development of frailty has not been well illustrated. METHODS: This study recruited 8,947 participants aged ≥ 45 years from the China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study, 2011-2018. Group-based trajectory modeling was employed to identify frailty trajectories. Multinomial logistic regression was used to assess the association between solid cooking fuel use and frailty trajectories. Population-attributable fractions were used to estimate the frailty burden from solid fuel use. RESULTS: We identified three frailty trajectories: low-stable ( n = 5,789), moderate-increasing ( n = 2,603), and fast-increasing ( n = 555). Solid fuel use was associated with higher odds of being in the moderate-increasing ( OR: 1.24, 95% CI: 1.08-1.42) and fast-increasing ( OR: 1.48, 95% CI: 1.14-1.92) trajectories. These associations were strengthened by longer solid fuel use ( P for trend < 0.001). Switching to clean fuel significantly reduced the risk of being in these trajectories compared with persistent solid fuel users. Without solid fuel, 8% of moderate- and 19% of fast-increasing trajectories demonstrated frailty development like the low-stable group. CONCLUSION Solid cooking fuel use is associated with frailty trajectories in middle-aged and older Chinese populations.
Humans ; China/epidemiology* ; Cooking ; Male ; Female ; Middle Aged ; Aged ; Air Pollution, Indoor/adverse effects* ; Frailty/etiology* ; Longitudinal Studies ; Cohort Studies

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

ObjectiveThis study leverages structural data from antigen-antibody complexes of the influenza A virus neuraminidase (NA) protein to investigate the spatial recognition relationship between the antigenic epitopes and antibody paratopes. MethodsStructural data on NA protein antigen-antibody complexes were comprehensively collected from the SAbDab database, and processed to obtain the amino acid sequences and spatial distribution information on antigenic epitopes and corresponding antibody paratopes. Statistical analysis was conducted on the antibody sequences, frequency of use of genes, amino acid preferences, and the lengths of complementarity determining regions (CDR). Epitope hotspots for antibody binding were analyzed, and the spatial structural similarity of antibody paratopes was calculated and subjected to clustering, which allowed for a comprehensively exploration of the spatial recognition relationship between antigenic epitopes and antibodies. The specificity of antibodies targeting different antigenic epitope clusters was further validated through bio-layer interferometry (BLI) experiments. ResultsThe collected data revealed that the antigen-antibody complex structure data of influenza A virus NA protein in SAbDab database were mainly from H3N2, H7N9 and H1N1 subtypes. The hotspot regions of antigen epitopes were primarily located around the catalytic active site. The antibodies used for structural analysis were primarily derived from human and murine sources. Among murine antibodies, the most frequently used V-J gene combination was IGHV1-12*01/IGHJ2*01, while for human antibodies, the most common combination was IGHV1-69*01/IGHJ6*01. There were significant differences in the lengths and usage preferences of heavy chain CDR amino acids between antibodies that bind within the catalytic active site and those that bind to regions outside the catalytic active site. The results revealed that structurally similar antibodies could recognize the same epitopes, indicating a specific spatial recognition between antibody and antigen epitopes. Structural overlap in the binding regions was observed for antibodies with similar paratope structures, and the competitive binding of these antibodies to the epitope was confirmed through BLI experiments. ConclusionThe antigen epitopes of NA protein mainly ditributed around the catalytic active site and its surrounding loops. Spatial complementarity and electrostatic interactions play crucial roles in the recognition and binding of antibodies to antigenic epitopes in the catalytic region. There existed a spatial recognition relationship between antigens and antibodies that was independent of the uniqueness of antibody sequences, which means that antibodies with different sequences could potentially form similar local spatial structures and recognize the same epitopes.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

With the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence(GAI)technologies,their widespread application in academic research and writing is continuously expanding the boundaries of sci-entific inquiry.However,this trend has also raised a series of ethical and regulatory challenges,inclu-ding issues related to authorship,content authenticity,citation accuracy,and accountability.In light of the growing involvement of AI in generating academic content,establishing an open,controllable,and trustworthy ethical governance framework has become a key task for safeguarding research integrity and maintaining trust within the academic community.This expert consensus outlines ethical requirements across key stages of AI-assisted academic writing-including topic selection,data management,citation practices,and authorship attribution.It aims to clarify the boundaries and ethical obligations surrounding AI use in academic writing,ensuring that technological tools enhance efficiency without compromising in-tegrity.The goal is to provide guidance and institutional support for building a responsible and sustainable research ecosystem.

With the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence(GAI)technologies,their widespread application in academic research and writing is continuously expanding the boundaries of sci-entific inquiry.However,this trend has also raised a series of ethical and regulatory challenges,inclu-ding issues related to authorship,content authenticity,citation accuracy,and accountability.In light of the growing involvement of AI in generating academic content,establishing an open,controllable,and trustworthy ethical governance framework has become a key task for safeguarding research integrity and maintaining trust within the academic community.This expert consensus outlines ethical requirements across key stages of AI-assisted academic writing-including topic selection,data management,citation practices,and authorship attribution.It aims to clarify the boundaries and ethical obligations surrounding AI use in academic writing,ensuring that technological tools enhance efficiency without compromising in-tegrity.The goal is to provide guidance and institutional support for building a responsible and sustainable research ecosystem.