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.

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.

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 was aimed at investigating the carrier rate of, and molecular variation in, α- and β-globin gene mutations in Hunan Province. METHODS: We recruited 25,946 individuals attending premarital screening from 42 districts and counties in all 14 cities of Hunan Province. Hematological screening was performed, and molecular parameters were assessed. RESULTS: The overall carrier rate of thalassemia was 7.1%, including 4.83% for α-thalassemia, 2.15% for β-thalassemia, and 0.12% for both α- and β-thalassemia. The highest carrier rate of thalassemia was in Yongzhou (14.57%). The most abundant genotype of α-thalassemia and β-thalassemia was -α ^3.7/αα (50.23%) and β ^IVS-II-654/β ^N (28.23%), respectively. Four α-globin mutations [CD108 (ACC>AAC), CAP +29 (G>C), Hb Agrinio and Hb Cervantes] and six β-globin mutations [CAP +8 (C>T), IVS-II-848 (C>T), -56 (G>C), beta nt-77 (G>C), codon 20/21 (-TGGA) and Hb Knossos] had not previously been identified in China. Furthermore, this study provides the first report of the carrier rates of abnormal hemoglobin variants and α-globin triplication in Hunan Province, which were 0.49% and 1.99%, respectively. CONCLUSION Our study demonstrates the high complexity and diversity of thalassemia gene mutations in the Hunan population. The results should facilitate genetic counselling and the prevention of severe thalassemia in this region.
Humans ; beta-Thalassemia/genetics* ; alpha-Thalassemia/genetics* ; Hemoglobinopathies/genetics* ; China/epidemiology* ; High-Throughput Nucleotide Sequencing

Background/Aims:  Rituximab is known to be associated with high hepatitis B virus (HBV) reactivation rate in patients with resolved HBV infection and hematologic malignancy. However, data regarding HBV reactivation (HBVr) in rheumatic patients receiving rituximab is limited. To assess the HBVr rate in hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg)-negative patients receiving rituximab for autoimmune diseases in a large real-world cohort. Methods:  From March 2006 to December 2019, 900 patients with negative HBsAg receiving at least one cycle of rituximab for autoimmune diseases in a tertiary medical center in Taiwan were retrospectively reviewed. Clinical outcome and factors associated with HBVr were analyzed. Results: After a median follow-up period of 3.3 years, 21 patients developed HBVr, among whom 17 patients were positive for hepatitis B core antibody (anti-HBc) and four were negative. Thirteen patients had clinical hepatitis flare, while eight patients had HBsAg seroreversion without hepatitis. Old age, anti-HBc positivity, undetectable serum hepatitis B surface antibody level at rituximab initiation and a higher average rituximab dose were associated with a higher HBVr rate. There was no significant difference in the HBVr risk between rheumatoid arthritis and other autoimmune diseases. Among anti-HBc-negative patients, subjects without HBV vaccination at birth had an increased risk of HBVr (4/368, 1.1%) compared with those who received vaccination (0/126, 0%). Conclusions In HBV endemic areas where occult HBV is prevalent, anti-HBc-negative patients, may still be at risk for HBVr after rituximab exposure. HBVr may still be considered in HBsAgnegative patients developing abnormal liver function after rituximab exposure, even in patients with negative anti-HBc.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to reveal the insomnia burden and relevant influencing factors among informal caregivers (ICs) of hospitalized patients with lung cancer. METHODS: A cross-sectional study on ICs of hospitalized patients with lung cancer was conducted from December 31, 2020 to December 31, 2021. ICs' burden was assessed using the Caregiver Reaction Assessment (CRA), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Insomnia Severity Index (ISI). Linear and logistic regression models were used to identify the influencing factors. RESULTS: Among 289 ICs of hospitalized patients with lung cancer, 83 (28.72%), 53 (18.34%), and 14 (4.84%) ICs experienced mild, moderate, and severe insomnia, respectively. The scores concerning self-esteem, lack of family support, financial problems, disturbed schedule, and health problems were 4.32 ± 0.53, 2.24 ± 0.79, 2.84 ± 1.14, 3.63 ± 0.77, and 2.44 ± 0.95, respectively. ICs with higher Activities of Daily Living Scale (ADLS) scores were associated with a lower risk of insomnia, with an odd ratio ( OR) and 95% confidence interval ( CI) of 0.940 (0.898-0.983). Among the ICs, female gender ( OR = 2.597), alcohol consumption ( OR = 3.745), underlying medical conditions ( OR = 11.765), long-term caregiving experience ( OR = 37.037), and higher monthly expenses ( OR = 5.714) were associated with a high risk of insomnia. CONCLUSION Of the hospitalized patients with lung cancer, 51.9% experienced insomnia. Patients' ADL, ICs gender, alcohol consumption, underlying medical conditions, caregiving duration, and monthly expenses were influencing factors. Therefore, prompt screening and early intervention for ICs of patients with lung cancer is necessary.
Humans ; Female ; Caregivers ; Activities of Daily Living ; Cross-Sectional Studies ; Sleep Initiation and Maintenance Disorders/epidemiology* ; Lung Neoplasms/epidemiology*