Background: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is a complex, multifactorial disease with a significant global burden. Although genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have identified many T2DM-associated variants, most lie in non-coding regions, making it difficult to interpret their functional roles. Methods: We aimed to identify genetically regulated Cytosine–phosphate–Guanine (CpG) sites associated with T2DM by conducting a methylome-wide association study (MWAS), followed by Mendelian randomization (MR) and functional validation using human pancreatic cells and mouse models. MWAS was performed using summary statistics from large-scale GWAS and a DNA methylation (DNAm) prediction model to test associations between genetically predicted DNAm and T2DM. Results: We identified 111 CpG sites significantly associated with T2DM in Europeans, including 8 novel sites near genes not previously linked to T2DM. These findings were replicated in independent datasets. Many CpGs also showed associations with cardiometabolic traits, highlighting shared epigenetic mechanisms. Trans-ethnic MR analysis confirmed consistent effects for six CpGs in East Asians. Functional analysis revealed that several CpGs regulate gene expression in human pancreatic α- and β-cells. Among them, 2´-5´-oligoadenylate synthetase like (OASL) expression, regulated by a significant CpG, was differentially expressed in α-cells of T2DM cases compared to controls. Supporting evidence from mouse models suggests a role for OASL in glucose regulation. Conclusion Our study identifies novel genetically regulated CpG sites associated with T2DM risk and highlights OASL as a potential epigenetic regulator of glucose metabolism in α-cells. These findings provide mechanistic insights into the epigenetic architecture of T2DM and suggest potential targets for cross-ethnic biomarker development and therapeutic intervention.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Objective: This study aims to overcome challenges in lumbar spine imaging, particularly lumbar spinal stenosis, by developing an automated segmentation model using advanced techniques. Traditional manual measurement and lesion detection methods are limited by subjectivity and inefficiency. The objective is to create an accurate and automated segmentation model that identifies anatomical structures in lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging scans. Methods: Leveraging a dataset of 539 lumbar spinal stenosis patients, the study utilizes the residual U-Net for semantic segmentation in sagittal and axial lumbar spine magnetic resonance images. The model, trained to recognize specific tissue categories, employs a geometry algorithm for anatomical structure quantification. Validation metrics, like Intersection over Union (IOU) and Dice coefficients, validate the residual U-Net’s segmentation accuracy. A novel rotation matrix approach is introduced for detecting bulging discs, assessing dural sac compression, and measuring yellow ligament thickness. Results: The residual U-Net achieves high precision in segmenting lumbar spine structures, with mean IOU values ranging from 0.82 to 0.93 across various tissue categories and views. The automated quantification system provides measurements for intervertebral disc dimensions, dural sac diameter, yellow ligament thickness, and disc hydration. Consistency between training and testing datasets assures the robustness of automated measurements. Conclusion Automated lumbar spine segmentation with residual U-Net and deep learning exhibits high precision in identifying anatomical structures, facilitating efficient quantification in lumbar spinal stenosis cases. The introduction of a rotation matrix enhances lesion detection, promising improved diagnostic accuracy, and supporting treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Objective: This study aims to overcome challenges in lumbar spine imaging, particularly lumbar spinal stenosis, by developing an automated segmentation model using advanced techniques. Traditional manual measurement and lesion detection methods are limited by subjectivity and inefficiency. The objective is to create an accurate and automated segmentation model that identifies anatomical structures in lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging scans. Methods: Leveraging a dataset of 539 lumbar spinal stenosis patients, the study utilizes the residual U-Net for semantic segmentation in sagittal and axial lumbar spine magnetic resonance images. The model, trained to recognize specific tissue categories, employs a geometry algorithm for anatomical structure quantification. Validation metrics, like Intersection over Union (IOU) and Dice coefficients, validate the residual U-Net’s segmentation accuracy. A novel rotation matrix approach is introduced for detecting bulging discs, assessing dural sac compression, and measuring yellow ligament thickness. Results: The residual U-Net achieves high precision in segmenting lumbar spine structures, with mean IOU values ranging from 0.82 to 0.93 across various tissue categories and views. The automated quantification system provides measurements for intervertebral disc dimensions, dural sac diameter, yellow ligament thickness, and disc hydration. Consistency between training and testing datasets assures the robustness of automated measurements. Conclusion Automated lumbar spine segmentation with residual U-Net and deep learning exhibits high precision in identifying anatomical structures, facilitating efficient quantification in lumbar spinal stenosis cases. The introduction of a rotation matrix enhances lesion detection, promising improved diagnostic accuracy, and supporting treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Objective: This study aims to overcome challenges in lumbar spine imaging, particularly lumbar spinal stenosis, by developing an automated segmentation model using advanced techniques. Traditional manual measurement and lesion detection methods are limited by subjectivity and inefficiency. The objective is to create an accurate and automated segmentation model that identifies anatomical structures in lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging scans. Methods: Leveraging a dataset of 539 lumbar spinal stenosis patients, the study utilizes the residual U-Net for semantic segmentation in sagittal and axial lumbar spine magnetic resonance images. The model, trained to recognize specific tissue categories, employs a geometry algorithm for anatomical structure quantification. Validation metrics, like Intersection over Union (IOU) and Dice coefficients, validate the residual U-Net’s segmentation accuracy. A novel rotation matrix approach is introduced for detecting bulging discs, assessing dural sac compression, and measuring yellow ligament thickness. Results: The residual U-Net achieves high precision in segmenting lumbar spine structures, with mean IOU values ranging from 0.82 to 0.93 across various tissue categories and views. The automated quantification system provides measurements for intervertebral disc dimensions, dural sac diameter, yellow ligament thickness, and disc hydration. Consistency between training and testing datasets assures the robustness of automated measurements. Conclusion Automated lumbar spine segmentation with residual U-Net and deep learning exhibits high precision in identifying anatomical structures, facilitating efficient quantification in lumbar spinal stenosis cases. The introduction of a rotation matrix enhances lesion detection, promising improved diagnostic accuracy, and supporting treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Objective: This study aims to overcome challenges in lumbar spine imaging, particularly lumbar spinal stenosis, by developing an automated segmentation model using advanced techniques. Traditional manual measurement and lesion detection methods are limited by subjectivity and inefficiency. The objective is to create an accurate and automated segmentation model that identifies anatomical structures in lumbar spine magnetic resonance imaging scans. Methods: Leveraging a dataset of 539 lumbar spinal stenosis patients, the study utilizes the residual U-Net for semantic segmentation in sagittal and axial lumbar spine magnetic resonance images. The model, trained to recognize specific tissue categories, employs a geometry algorithm for anatomical structure quantification. Validation metrics, like Intersection over Union (IOU) and Dice coefficients, validate the residual U-Net’s segmentation accuracy. A novel rotation matrix approach is introduced for detecting bulging discs, assessing dural sac compression, and measuring yellow ligament thickness. Results: The residual U-Net achieves high precision in segmenting lumbar spine structures, with mean IOU values ranging from 0.82 to 0.93 across various tissue categories and views. The automated quantification system provides measurements for intervertebral disc dimensions, dural sac diameter, yellow ligament thickness, and disc hydration. Consistency between training and testing datasets assures the robustness of automated measurements. Conclusion Automated lumbar spine segmentation with residual U-Net and deep learning exhibits high precision in identifying anatomical structures, facilitating efficient quantification in lumbar spinal stenosis cases. The introduction of a rotation matrix enhances lesion detection, promising improved diagnostic accuracy, and supporting treatment decisions for lumbar spinal stenosis patients.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.