Objective:To explore the relationship between mindfulness, optimism, and subjective well-being in post-lung transplantation patients, so as to provide a basis for nursing staff to improve patients' subjective well-being.Methods:This study was a cross-sectional survey. Convenience sampling was used to select 205 post-lung transplantation patients admitted to the First Affiliated Hospital of Guangzhou Medical University from October 2022 to November 2023 for the study. General Information Questionnaire, World Health Organization-Five Well-Being Scale, Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS) and Life Orientation Test-R (LOT-R) were used to investigate the study participants. Pearson correlation was used to analyze the correlation between subjective well-being and mindfulness and optimism in patients after lung transplantation. AMOS 24.0 software was used to construct a mediating model to analyze the path relationship between mindfulness, optimism and subjective well-being.Results:A total of 205 questionnaires were distributed and 202 valid questionnaires were recovered, with an effective recovery rate of 98.54% (202/205). In 202 patients after lung transplantation, the WHO-5 Well-Being Scale total score, MAAS total score, and LOT-R score were (16.31±4.73), (56.75±9.44), and (18.49±3.85), respectively. Lung transplantation patients' subjective well-being was positively correlated with mindfulness and optimism ( r=0.570, 0.600, both P<0.01). Optimism partially mediated the relationship between mindfulness and subjective well-being, with an effect value of 0.290 and an effect proportion of 52.35% (0.290/0.554) . Conclusions:Mindfulness and optimism are both positively correlated with subjective well-being in post-lung transplantation patients, and mindfulness could also influence subjective well-being through the mediating effect of optimism. Healthcare professionals should fully explore and cultivate positive psychological resources, such as mindfulness, in lung transplant patients, by increasing optimism as the target of intervention, which in turn improves patients' subjective well-being.

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.

Objective The purpose of writing the"expert consensus on humanistic care for patients in hospice care"(hereinafter referred to as the"consensus")aims to standardize the practice of humanistic care in the field of hospice care,ensuring that humanistic care is integrated throughout the entire service process for hospice care patients and their families.Methods A systematic search was conducted in domestic and foreign databases for literature related to hospice care and humanistic care,including guidelines,expert consensuses,systematic reviews or Meta-analyses,and evidence summaries.High-quality evidence was evaluated,extracted,and summarized to form the initial draft of the"consensus".From June to October 2024,20 experts from the fields of hospice care,nursing humanities,and evidence-based nursing were invited to participate in 1 round of expert consultation.Among them,13 experts were selected for 2 rounds of expert demonstration meetings.After collating and analyzing the experts' opinions,the initial draft was revised and refined,ultimately resulting in the final version of the"consensus".Results The effective response rate of the consultation questionnaire was 100％,with expert authority coefficient of 0.880,judgment coefficient of 0.935,and familiarity level of 0.825.The Kendall harmony coefficient of the expert consultation was 0.134(P＜0.05).The"consensus"consisted of 13 aspects,including the targets and objectives,principles,institutional guarantees,environmental requirements,etc.Conclusion This"consensus"possesses strong scientific rigor and practicality,which can provide guidance and references for the practice of humanistic care in the field of hospice care,promoting the standardization and humanization of hospice care services.

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.

Objective:To evaluate the safety and efficacy of accelerator-based boron neutron capture therapy (AB-BNCT) in the treatment of recurrent and refractory malignant tumors.Methods:The data of 14 patients admitted to Xiamen Humanity Hospital from September 2022 to April 2023 were prospectively collected, including 7 patients with primary brain malignancies and 7 patients with locally recurrent inoperable head and neck malignancies. All patients received intravenous infusion of boron drug (NBB-001, p-dihydroxyborylphe nylalanine, a patented freeze-dried formulation) at a total nominal dosage of 500 mg/kg (11 patients) or 750 mg/kg (3 patients), and were irradiated with neutrons (operating with NeuPex system). Adverse events after treatment were recorded and assessed. The primary efficacy endpoint was the 90 d objective response rate (ORR), while the secondary endpoints included progression-free survival (PFS) and complete response rate (CRR). Data were compiled and analyzed by SAS 9.4 software. The rate and 95% CI were calculated using Clopper-Pearson method. Results:The median dose delivered to 80% of the target volume (D 80%) was 16.80 GyE (range: 8.93-23.79 GyE). The most common adverse reactions were hyperamylasemia, alopecia, and hyperprolactinemia. Five patients experienced 8 cases of grade 3 or above adverse events, including 1 case of grade 4 acute kidney injury and 7 cases of grade 3 adverse events. All adverse events were recovered after observation or treatment. At 90 d after treatment, the ORR of all patients was 9/14 (64%, 95% CI: 35%-87%), disease control rate (DCR) was 10/14 (71%, 95% CI: 42%-92%), CRR was 2/14 (14%, 95% CI: 2%-42%); and the best overall response during the entire course included an ORR of 10/14 (71% ,95% CI: 42%-92%), DCR of 13/14 (93%, 95% CI: 66%-100%), and CRR of 3/14 (21% ,95% CI: 5%-51%). The 1-year survival rate for head and neck malignancies was 71.4%, and the 2-year survival rate was 42.8%. The 1-year survival rate for recurrent brain malignancies was 42.8%. Conclusion:AB-BNCT demonstrates favorable safety and promising efficacy in treating primary brain malignancies and recurrent/refractory head and neck malignancies, representing a potential therapeutic option.

The aim of this updated guideline is to provide comprehensive recommendations for the management of gout in patients with common comorbidities, such as chronic kidney disease(CKD), cardiovascular disease(CVD), diabetes, osteoarthritis(OA), and gastrointestinal disorders. This guideline was developed by a multidisciplinary expert panel consisting of specialists in endocrinology, rheumatology, nephrology, cardiology, gastroenterology, and methodology. The development process adhered to standard methodologies, including PICO(population, intervention, comparator, and outcomes) question deconstruction, systematic literature review, the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation(GRADE) for evidence and recommendation evaluation, Delphi voting, and expert consensus. The guideline presents 26 evidence-based recommendations addressing 7 clinical questions for patients with hyperuricemia and gout in the context of comorbidities. Key recommendations include the maintenance of strict serum urate targets, particularly for patients with CKD stage≥3, chronic gouty arthritis, and OA, in order to prevent disease progression. In patients with CVD or diabetes, intra-articular triamcinolone is preferred over systemic glucocorticoids. Prioritized anti-inflammatory treatments for patients with CKD, gastrointestinal diseases and OA are recommended. The guideline also introduces emerging therapies, such as interleukin-1 inhibitors and selective urate transport inhibitors, as potential treatment options for refractory cases. The update offers a comprehensive, patient-centered approach to managing gout, particularly in individuals with associated comorbidities. Multidisciplinary collaboration and emerging new treatments and evidence ensure the optimization of the recommendations.

Objective The purpose of writing the"expert consensus on humanistic care for patients in hospice care"(hereinafter referred to as the"consensus")aims to standardize the practice of humanistic care in the field of hospice care,ensuring that humanistic care is integrated throughout the entire service process for hospice care patients and their families.Methods A systematic search was conducted in domestic and foreign databases for literature related to hospice care and humanistic care,including guidelines,expert consensuses,systematic reviews or Meta-analyses,and evidence summaries.High-quality evidence was evaluated,extracted,and summarized to form the initial draft of the"consensus".From June to October 2024,20 experts from the fields of hospice care,nursing humanities,and evidence-based nursing were invited to participate in 1 round of expert consultation.Among them,13 experts were selected for 2 rounds of expert demonstration meetings.After collating and analyzing the experts' opinions,the initial draft was revised and refined,ultimately resulting in the final version of the"consensus".Results The effective response rate of the consultation questionnaire was 100％,with expert authority coefficient of 0.880,judgment coefficient of 0.935,and familiarity level of 0.825.The Kendall harmony coefficient of the expert consultation was 0.134(P＜0.05).The"consensus"consisted of 13 aspects,including the targets and objectives,principles,institutional guarantees,environmental requirements,etc.Conclusion This"consensus"possesses strong scientific rigor and practicality,which can provide guidance and references for the practice of humanistic care in the field of hospice care,promoting the standardization and humanization of hospice care services.

Objective: To retrospectively compare the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with parotidectomy for superficial pleomorphic adenoma (PA). Materials and Methods: From March 2022 to October 2023, 88 patients diagnosed with superficial parotid PA underwent either RFA (n = 12; mean age, 47.1 years) or parotidectomy (n = 76; mean age, 47.8 years). Patients in the RFA group were matched to those in the surgery group in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on age, sex, tumor volume, diameter, location, and comorbidities. Ultrasound characteristics, cosmetic scores (0–4), numerical rating scale scores (0–10), and complications were assessed before the procedures and at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Outcomes were compared between baseline and follow-up in the RFA group and between the RFA and surgery groups. Results: In the RFA group, significant reductions in tumor volume were observed between baseline (median, 2.02 cm 3 ) and the 1-month follow-up (median, 1.21 cm 3 ; P = 0.015), between the 1-month and 3-month follow-ups (median, 0.53 cm 3 ; P= 0.002), and between the 3- and 6-month follow-ups (median, 0.23 cm 3 ; P = 0.003). The volume reduction ratios at 1, 3, and 6 months were 39.7%, 79.9%, and 88.0%, respectively. The cosmetic score was significantly lower at 3- and 6-month followup compared to baseline (median 1 and 1 vs. 4, P = 0.04). The numerical rating scale scores did not differ significantly from baseline throughout follow-up. In the propensity score-matched analysis (12 patients per group), RFA was associated with a shorter median procedure time (61.5 vs. 253.3 minutes; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (0 vs. 4 days; P < 0.001), and lower cost (1859.9 vs. 3512.4 USD; P < 0.001) than parotidectomy, with no significant difference in overall complication rates (33.3% [4/12] vs. 41.7% [5/12]; P = 1.000). Conclusion RFA may be a safe and effective alternative to surgery for superficial parotid PA, offering a shorter median procedure time, shorter hospital stay, and lower costs.

Objective: To retrospectively compare the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with parotidectomy for superficial pleomorphic adenoma (PA). Materials and Methods: From March 2022 to October 2023, 88 patients diagnosed with superficial parotid PA underwent either RFA (n = 12; mean age, 47.1 years) or parotidectomy (n = 76; mean age, 47.8 years). Patients in the RFA group were matched to those in the surgery group in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on age, sex, tumor volume, diameter, location, and comorbidities. Ultrasound characteristics, cosmetic scores (0–4), numerical rating scale scores (0–10), and complications were assessed before the procedures and at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Outcomes were compared between baseline and follow-up in the RFA group and between the RFA and surgery groups. Results: In the RFA group, significant reductions in tumor volume were observed between baseline (median, 2.02 cm 3 ) and the 1-month follow-up (median, 1.21 cm 3 ; P = 0.015), between the 1-month and 3-month follow-ups (median, 0.53 cm 3 ; P= 0.002), and between the 3- and 6-month follow-ups (median, 0.23 cm 3 ; P = 0.003). The volume reduction ratios at 1, 3, and 6 months were 39.7%, 79.9%, and 88.0%, respectively. The cosmetic score was significantly lower at 3- and 6-month followup compared to baseline (median 1 and 1 vs. 4, P = 0.04). The numerical rating scale scores did not differ significantly from baseline throughout follow-up. In the propensity score-matched analysis (12 patients per group), RFA was associated with a shorter median procedure time (61.5 vs. 253.3 minutes; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (0 vs. 4 days; P < 0.001), and lower cost (1859.9 vs. 3512.4 USD; P < 0.001) than parotidectomy, with no significant difference in overall complication rates (33.3% [4/12] vs. 41.7% [5/12]; P = 1.000). Conclusion RFA may be a safe and effective alternative to surgery for superficial parotid PA, offering a shorter median procedure time, shorter hospital stay, and lower costs.

Objective: To retrospectively compare the safety and efficacy of ultrasound-guided radiofrequency ablation (RFA) with parotidectomy for superficial pleomorphic adenoma (PA). Materials and Methods: From March 2022 to October 2023, 88 patients diagnosed with superficial parotid PA underwent either RFA (n = 12; mean age, 47.1 years) or parotidectomy (n = 76; mean age, 47.8 years). Patients in the RFA group were matched to those in the surgery group in a 1:1 ratio using propensity scores based on age, sex, tumor volume, diameter, location, and comorbidities. Ultrasound characteristics, cosmetic scores (0–4), numerical rating scale scores (0–10), and complications were assessed before the procedures and at 1-, 3-, and 6-month follow-ups. Outcomes were compared between baseline and follow-up in the RFA group and between the RFA and surgery groups. Results: In the RFA group, significant reductions in tumor volume were observed between baseline (median, 2.02 cm 3 ) and the 1-month follow-up (median, 1.21 cm 3 ; P = 0.015), between the 1-month and 3-month follow-ups (median, 0.53 cm 3 ; P= 0.002), and between the 3- and 6-month follow-ups (median, 0.23 cm 3 ; P = 0.003). The volume reduction ratios at 1, 3, and 6 months were 39.7%, 79.9%, and 88.0%, respectively. The cosmetic score was significantly lower at 3- and 6-month followup compared to baseline (median 1 and 1 vs. 4, P = 0.04). The numerical rating scale scores did not differ significantly from baseline throughout follow-up. In the propensity score-matched analysis (12 patients per group), RFA was associated with a shorter median procedure time (61.5 vs. 253.3 minutes; P < 0.001), shorter hospital stay (0 vs. 4 days; P < 0.001), and lower cost (1859.9 vs. 3512.4 USD; P < 0.001) than parotidectomy, with no significant difference in overall complication rates (33.3% [4/12] vs. 41.7% [5/12]; P = 1.000). Conclusion RFA may be a safe and effective alternative to surgery for superficial parotid PA, offering a shorter median procedure time, shorter hospital stay, and lower costs.