Objective To construct large medical model named by "Huaxi HongYi"and explore its application effectiveness in assisting medical record generation. Methods By the way of a full-chain medical large model construction paradigm of "data annotation - model training - scenario incubation", through strategies such as multimodal data fusion, domain adaptation training, and localization of hardware adaptation, "Huaxi HongYi" with 72 billion parameters was constructed. Combined with technologies such as speech recognition, knowledge graphs, and reinforcement learning, an application system for assisting in the generation of medical records was developed. Results Taking the assisted generation of discharge records as an example, in the pilot department, after using the application system, the average completion times of writing a medical records shortened (21 min vs. 5 min) with efficiency increased by 3.2 time, the accuracy rate of the model output reached 92.4%. Conclusion It is feasible for medical institutions to build independently controllable medical large models and incubate various applications based on these models, providing a reference pathway for artificial intelligence development in similar institutions.

This study used the Appraisal of Guidelines Research & Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to demonstratively compare 34 global coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） health systems guidance documents （HSGs） and 6 World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs. The comparison involved topic， participants， methods， recommendations， and implementability， with the aim of exploring the characteristics of emergency HSGs. The results showed that the emergency HSGs had an overall average score of 49%， with topic having the highest score， recommendations having the second highest score， and participants having the lowest score. The standard HSGs had an overall average score of 79%， with high scores in all items. The emergency HSGs had lower scores in participants， methods， recommendations， and implementability than the standard HSGs （P<0.001）， while the COVID-19 emergency HSGs developed by the WHO had higher score in topic than the standard HSGs （P<0.05）. Compared with those released by countries， the COVID-19 emergency HSG developed by the WHO showed superiority in all items and overall scores （P=0.000 2）. This indicates that emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG， place equal emphasis on topic and recommendations as standard HSGs but have low requirements in terms of expert participation， evidence support， and comprehensive consideration in the time- and resource-limited context. They have the characteristics of prominent topics， clear purposes， orientation to demand， keeping up with the latest evidence， flexible adjustment， and timeliness， emphasizing immediate implementation effects， weakening long-term effects， and focusing on comprehensive benefits. Additionally， developers， types， and report completeness are important influencing factors.

The scientific rigor and efficacy of methodologies employed in drafting emergency health systems guidance documents （HSGs） are paramount in guaranteeing the quality， reliability， and applicability of HSGs. According to the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation- Health Systems （AGREE-HS）， we demonstratively assessed both global coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） emergency HSGs and World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs to uncover the core attributes of methods employed in the development of emergency HSGs. Our evaluation findings revealed that across the five assessment items of AGREE-HS， methods in the 34 emergency HSGs evaluated ranked third， trailing behind topic and recommendations. Notably， criterion 2 （the best available and most contextually relevant evidence is considered） received the highest score， whereas criterion 5 （evidence of cost and cost-effectiveness of the potential options is described） scored the lowest. Compared with the WHO standard HSGs， the COVID-19 emergency HSGs exhibited low scores in methods （P<0.05）， which was reflected in nine criteria （P<0.05）， especially in criteria 1 （systematic and transparent methods are used to identify and review the evidence） and 9 （systematic and transparent methods are used to agree upon the final recommendations）. Among the COVID-19 emergency HSGs， that developed by the WHO achieved higher scores in eight out of all nine criteria， excluding criterion 8 （P<0.05）. The clinically relevant emergency HSGs had higher scores in the criteria 3 （the evidence base is current） and 8 （the rationale behind the recommendations is clear） than other types of emergency HSGs. Collectively， the methodology for developing emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG， underscores evidence orientation and integrates expert consensus. It is characterized by adaptable evidence synthesis strategies， streamlined evidence review protocols， and contextual relevance， all of which are influenced by external， internal， and implementation-specific factors.

The formulation method of emergency health systems guidance （HSG） is crucial， directly impacting the efficiency and effectiveness of responses in emergencies. A scientifically sound， systematic， and easily executable guidance document can assist health institutions at all levels in quickly coordinating resources， standardizing emergency response processes， and safeguarding public health. This study employed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to analyze the characteristics of participants in developing emergency HSGs represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG. The results showed that in the 34 HSGs included in this study， the item participants received the lowest score. Within this item， criterion 1 （diversity of development group） scored the highest （3.13±1.55）， while criterion 5 （prevention of funding agency influence） scored the lowest （1.21±0.47）. There were differences （P<0.05） in measures taken to mitigate funding agency influence between the six standard HSGs developed by the World Health Organization （WHO） and the four emergency HSGs. Additionally， differences （P<0.05） existed in the development group members， background， conflicts of interest， and preventive measures between the six WHO standard HSGs and the 34 emergency HSGs， as well as between the HSGs developed by the WHO and those developed by countries. The participants in developing emergency HSGs were influenced by various factors， including limited time for guideline development， modes of participation， scarce evidence， and uncertainties in expected outcomes. There is a need to downplay extensive requirements concerning the composition of group members， institutional diversity， and conflicts of interest， emphasizing the roles of key participants like government officials and professionals who can provide rapid， practical guidance in emergency situations.

Recommendations， consensus-based syntheses of the best available evidence， constitute the core content of a guideline. This paper analyzes the characteristics of emergency health systems guidance documents （HSGs）， represented by the coronavirus disease-2019 （COVID-19） emergency HSG， regarding the item "recommendations" and its eight evaluation criteria in the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation for Health Systems （AGREE-HS）. The World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs were used as reference to explore the characteristics of emergency HSGs that are different from non-emergency HSGs. The results showed that the “recommendations” scored second after “topic” among the five items. Criterion 7 relating to operability scored higher than others among the eight criteria， and criterion 3 dealing with ethical principles scored lower than other criteria. Compared with the standard HSGs， the emergency HSGs showed decreased scores （P<0.05） of the item recommendations and the criteria of this item except criterion 4 concerning equity promotion. Among the HSGs with different developers， those developed by the WHO had higher （P<0.05） scores of recommendations than nationally developed HSGs， as evidenced by criterion 4， criterion 5 involving acceptability to and alignment with sociocultural and political interests， and criterion 8 for updating plans. The HSGs regarding global or country strategy scored higher （P<0.05） on criterion 2 relating to comprehensiveness than those involving specific guidance on clinical or material issues. Overall， the emergency HSGs， represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSGs， differ from the standard HSGs in a number of ways in terms of their recommendations. Emergency HSGs have more condensed content and weaker articulation of expected outcomes. They incline to put more emphasis on updating plans， rather than comprehensiveness or integrative requirements in terms of ethics， equity， and sociocultural and political interests.

The clear definition of the topic in emergency health systems guidance （HSG） ensures the relevance， scientific rigor， and practicality of the guidance， providing a clear direction and a framework for a rapid and effective public health response. This study used the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research & Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS） to demonstratively evaluate the global COVID-19 emergency HSGs and World Health Organization （WHO） standard HSGs， aiming to explore the characteristics of topic in emergency HSGs. The results showed that in the 34 HSGs included， the item topic received the highest score. Specifically， criterion 4 relating to relevant and applicable factors scored the highest （5.59）， while criterion 3 concerning the prioritization of health system challenges scored the lowest （2.76）. There were differences （P<0.05） in criterion 1 between standard HSGs and overall emergency HSGs， as well as between WHO and national emergency HSGs. Criterion 3 also showed differences （P<0.05） between standard HSGs and emergency HSGs， as well as between WHO and national emergency HSGs. Criterion 4 displayed differences （P<0.000 1） between WHO and national emergency HSGs. No differences were observed in intra-group or inter-group comparisons of different emergency HSG subcategories （P<0.05）. Overall， emergency HSGs represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG focus on detailing the challenges faced by the health system， including the natures of challenges， affected populations， and other relevant and applicable factors， while aligning with stakeholder concerns. The prioritization is downplayed， with emphasis placed on rapid responses to and flexible handling of urgent issues. Influenced by factors such as the evidence base， phase timing， and effectiveness， the topic setting shows variations.

ObjectiveTo explore the feasibility and rationality of applying relevant diagnostic and treatment programmes from textbooks as evidence in traditional Chinese medicine （TCM） diagnosis and treatment guidelines， using allergic rhinitis as an example. MethodsTextbooks published from October 1949 to December 2022， as well as TCM diagnosis and treatment guidelines published until December 2022 on allergic rhinitis were searched， and the contents of diagnosis and treatment related to allergic rhinitis were extracted. The similarities and differences between textbooks in different periods， between textbooks in different versions， and between textbooks and guidelines were compared and analyzed. ResultsA total of 12 national planning textbooks on TCM otolaryngology and 4 Chinese medicine diagnosis and treatment guidelines on allergic rhinitis from 1975 to 2021 were included. The evolution of diagnostic and treatment programmes was shown by the textbooks in different periods. Since 2003， syndrome of latent heat in lung channel has been added in the published textbook， and TCM featured therapies， such as nasal packing， intranasal spray were enriched， as well as the contents related to prevention and prognosis. The main syndromes included lung qi deficiency and cold， spleen qi deficiency， kidney yang deficiency， and latent heat in lung meridian. The most common recommended prescriptions were Wenfei Zhiliu Pill （温肺止流丹）， Yupingfeng Powder （玉屏风散） and Cangerzi Powder （苍耳子散）； Buzhong Yiqi Decoction （补中益气汤）， Shenling Baizhu Powder （参苓白术散）； Shenqi Pill （肾气丸） or Zhenwu Decoction （真武汤）； Xinyi Qingfei Decoction （辛夷清肺饮）. A comparison of different versions of textbooks showed that the classification of syndromes was consistent， while the formulas were slightly different. The comparison between different versions of the current textbooks and the guidelines showed that the recommended prescriptions of the textbooks had more Cangerzi Powder， Xiaoqinglong Decoction （小青龙汤）， Zhenwu Decoction， etc.， while TCM featured therapies such as nose blowing， smelling， nasal plugging， nasal washing were enriched， and information on formula modification， prevention and adjustment， prognosis were also added， which can supplement the corresponding evidence for the guidelines. ConclusionTextbooks could serve as a strong supplement for the evidence-based development of TCM clinical guidelines. However， there is still a need for further research on the quality assessment system of textbook evidence to improve the credibility of its applicability of the guidelines evidence.

Guidance implementation acts as a bridge between theory and practice，enabling the rapid expansion of their impact and application. This study demonstratively evaluated emergency health systems guidance documents （HSG），represented by the COVID-19 emergency HSG，based on the item implementability of the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation-Health Systems （AGREE-HS），aiming to explore the characteristics of implementability in emergency HSG. The evaluation results indicated that the COVID-19 emergency HSG had a low mean score in implementability，which ranked just above the item participants. Criterion 2 （costs and resource considerations for implementing the recommendations） received the highest mean score of 4.29，while criterion 9 （systematic evaluation of implementation） received the lowest mean score of 1.34. The emergency HSG formulated by the World Health Organization（WHO） and those formulated by various countries showed no difference （P=0.114） in criterion 1 （barriers and facilitators to implementation） but had differences （P<0.05） regarding the average item scores and the scores of the remaining criteria. The WHO standard HSG had high overall scores and had differences （P<0.05） in both the mean item scores and the scores of the nine criteria when compared with the emergency HSG. The global/national HSG showed differences in scores of criterion 1 （barriers and facilitators to implementation） compared with the both clinically relevant HSG and material support HSG （P<0.05）. Emergency HSG prioritized considerations of implementation costs，resources，and flexibility in terms of implementability，while de-emphasizing aspects such as stakeholder opinions，dissemination strategies，and evaluation of HSG. This may be attributed to the context in which emergency HSG are formulated，given the inherent flexibility and variability of emergency health events. The developers should comprehensively consider the needs and characteristics related to the implementability of emergency HSG during the formulation process.

BACKGROUND: Evidence on the relations of the American Heart Association's ideal cardiovascular health (ICH) with mortality in Asians is sparse, and the interaction between behavioral and medical metrics remained unclear. We aimed to fill the gaps. METHODS: A total of 198,164 participants without cancer and cardiovascular disease (CVD) were included from the China Kadoorie Biobank study (2004-2018), Dongfeng-Tongji cohort (2008-2018), and Kailuan study (2006-2019). Four behaviors (i.e., smoking, physical activity, diet, body mass index) and three medical factors (i.e., blood pressure, blood glucose, and blood lipid) were classified into poor, intermediate, and ideal levels (0, 1, and 2 points), which constituted 8-point behavioral, 6-point medical, and 14-point ICH scores. Results of Cox regression from three cohorts were pooled using random-effects models of meta-analysis. RESULTS: During about 2 million person-years, 20,176 deaths were recorded. After controlling for demographic characteristics and alcohol drinking, hazard ratios (95% confidence intervals) comparing ICH scores of 10-14 vs. 0-6 were 0.52 (0.41-0.67), 0.44 (0.37-0.53), 0.54 (0.45-0.66), and 0.86 (0.64-1.14) for all-cause, CVD, respiratory, and cancer mortality. A higher behavioral or medical score was independently associated with lower all-cause and CVD mortality among the total population and populations with different levels of behavioral or medical health equally, and no interaction was observed. CONCLUSIONS ICH was associated with lower all-cause, CVD, and respiratory mortality among Chinese adults. Both behavioral and medical health should be improved to prevent premature deaths.
Adult ; Humans ; Cardiovascular Diseases/prevention & control* ; East Asian People ; Prospective Studies ; Risk Factors ; Smoking

Objective:To analyze the clinical characteristics in patients with persistent positive pharyngeal swab of 2019 novel coronavirus Omicron variant and results of nucleic acid testing of anal swabs to provide basis for prevention and control measures.Methods:This study included 93 patients whose pharyngeal swab nucleic acid test were persistent positive and admitted to the ward of Daping Hospital in the National Exhibition and Convention Center (Shanghai) Makeshift Hospital from May 1 to May 24, 2022. The gender, age, underlying diseases, vaccination status, clinical symptoms, interval between infection onset and anal sampling, length of hospital stay, the nucleic acid test result of pharyngeal swabs and anal swabs and the time turning negative were collected and analyzed.Results:The age of 93 patients ranged from 8 to 72 years old with a median of (46.0±16.0) years old. Among them, 30 cases (32.3%) were male and 63 cases (67.7%) were female. Sixty-five patients (69.9%) received 2-3 shots of vaccine, 2 patients (2.1%) received 1 shot, and 26 patients (28.0%) did not receive any vaccination. Twenty patients (21.5%) had underlying diseases, of which hypertension (13 cases, 14.0%) and type 2 diabetes mellitus (6 cases, 6.5%) were the most common. Twenty-four patients (25.8%) had asymptomatic infection and the rest (69 cases, 74.2%) had mild symptoms. Cough (50 cases, 53.8%) and sore throat (28 cases, 30.1%) were the most common clinical manifestations of the upper respiratory tract in these patients. Only 6 patients (6.5%) had gastrointestinal symptoms (including diarrhea in 5 patients and diarrhea with vomiting in 1 patient). Pharyngeal and anal swabs were collected simultaneously from all 93 patients at 8-16th days [(11.55±2.27) days] after 2019 novel coronavirus Omicron variant infection. The pharyngeal swabs were positive in 79 patients (85.0%) and the anal swabs were positive in 5 patients (5.4%). The time of pharyngeal swabs turning negative was (14.7±2.9) days, and that of anal swab turning positive was (14.2±1.9) days. The median length of hospital stay was (16.7±2.9) days.Conclusions:In patients with persistent positive nucleic acid of the 2019 novel coronavirus Omicron variant, there were more mild infection than asymptomatic. The upper respiratory tract symptoms such as cough and sore throat were the most. The likelihood of transmission of 2019 novel coronavirus Omicron variant through the digestive tract may be low. The correlation between gastrointestinal symptoms and 2019 novel coronavirus Omicron variant RNA in the digestive tract is uncertain.