suggest that some reproductive factors associated with BC differ across ethnicities and time trends, perhaps due to the prevalence of reproductive factors and the baseline hazard of BC.

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.

Background: The accuracy of Logical Observation Identifiers Names and Codes (LOINC) mappings is reportedly low, and the LOINC codes used for research purposes in Korea have not been validated for accuracy or usability. Our study aimed to evaluate the discrepancies and similarities in interoperability using existing LOINC mappings in actual patient care settings. Methods: We collected data on local test codes and their corresponding LOINC mappings from seven university hospitals. Our analysis focused on laboratory tests that are frequently requested, excluding clinical microbiology and molecular tests. Codes from nationwide proficiency tests served as intermediary benchmarks for comparison. A research team, comprising clinical pathologists and terminology experts, utilized the LOINC manual to reach a consensus on determining the most suitable LOINC codes. Results: A total of 235 LOINC codes were designated as optimal codes for 162 frequent tests.Among these, 51 test items, including 34 urine tests, required multiple optimal LOINC codes, primarily due to unnoted properties such as whether the test was quantitative or qualitative, or differences in measurement units. We analyzed 962 LOINC codes linked to 162 tests across seven institutions, discovering that 792 (82.3%) of these codes were consistent. Inconsistencies were most common in the analyte component (38 inconsistencies, 33.3%), followed by the method (33 inconsistencies, 28.9%), and properties (13 inconsistencies, 11.4%). Conclusion This study reveals a significant inconsistency rate of over 15% in LOINC mappings utilized for research purposes in university hospitals, underlining the necessity for expert verification to enhance interoperability in real patient care.

Background: Despite the critical role of vitamin D in various biological processes, its impact on frailty—a condition closely linked to biological age—remains inconclusive. This study aimed to explore the association between serum 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25[OH] D) levels and frailty status in older Korean adults, utilizing a comprehensive frailty index (FI) and a nationally representative dataset. Methods: This cross-sectional study included 6,589 participants aged ≥65 years from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2008–2012). Frailty was assessed using a deficit accumulation FI based on 38 physical, cognitive, psychological, and social items. Results: After adjusting for potential confounders, frail men showed 6.8% lower serum 25(OH)D concentrations compared to nonfrail controls (P=0.007). Men in the lowest serum 25(OH)D quartile (≤39.3 nmol/L) exhibited a 5.3% higher FI (P=0.047) and 1.71-fold increased odds of frailty (P=0.005), compared to those in the highest quartile (>63.3 nmol/L). Similarly, men with vitamin D deficiency (<30 nmol/L) exhibited a 9.6% higher FI compared to those with sufficient vitamin D levels (≥50 nmol/L; P=0.004). However, no significant association between serum 25(OH)D concentration and frailty was observed in women across any analysis. Conclusion These findings suggest that low serum 25(OH)D concentrations are a potential risk factor for frailty, particularly in men. Further research is warranted to determine whether vitamin D supplementation in such high-risk older adults could help mitigate frailty.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to develop the Guidelines for Recommendation Reporting (G-RECO) for use in the Public Health Weekly Report (PHWR) in Korea, aiming to improve the standardization, scientific accuracy, and practical applicability of recommendation reports in clinical practice guidelines. Methods: The methodology of this study aligned with the EQUATOR Network standards. A multidisciplinary research committee was formed, comprising experts in various relevant fields. The development process included a comprehensive literature review, analysis of existing guidelines, and formulation of a structured G-RECO framework with 21 key items. This was supplemented with Explanation & Elaboration documents for each item. The draft underwent rigorous revisions and evaluations by both internal and external experts. Results: By November 2023, significant progress had been made in developing a detailed G-RECO checklist and accompanying E&E documents. These tools are designed to guide authors in clear and consistent reporting of recommendation reports. The team is poised to finalize and publish the checklist and E&E documents by December 2024. Conclusion The G-RECO guidelines represent a significant advancement in the formalization and standardization of recommendation reports for the PHWR. They are expected to improve the quality of research and publications in clinical practice guidelines, contributing to the evolution of the field and enriching public health discourse. The guidelines, with their comprehensive nature and user-friendly design, will become an invaluable resource for researchers, editors, and peer reviewers in public health and epidemiology.

Objectives: The objective of this study was to develop a reporting guideline for epidemiological survey reports, referred to as “Guidelines for Survey Reporting (G-SURE).” Methods: To develop G-SURE, we adopted a systematic approach, starting with a detailed review of recent survey reports in Public Health Weekly Report, Eurosurveillance, and Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report and an analysis of current reporting standards. After drafting the guidelines, our team conducted an in-depth internal evaluation to assess their effectiveness and applicability. We then refined the guidelines based on insights from external experts and potential users, particularly those with significant experience in survey reporting. The plan also includes ongoing efforts to widely share the guidelines and update them periodically, incorporating new findings and user feedback. Results: G-SURE will provide a structured framework for reporting outbreak investigations, comprising a detailed checklist and Explanation & Elaboration documents. These will improve the transparency, consistency, and quality of public health documentation. Conclusion In this protocol article, we introduce G-SURE, a guideline developed to improve epidemiological survey research. G-SURE addresses the critical need for uniform reporting standards in epidemiological surveys, aiming to improve the quality and relevance of research outcomes in this area. This guideline is also designed to be a key resource for peer reviewers and editors, aiding them in efficiently assessing the thoroughness and accuracy of survey reports. By providing consistent reporting criteria, G-SURE seeks to minimize confusion and irregularities, which are often encountered in the process of scientific publication.

Objectives: Surveillance reporting, which is integral to public health and safety, involves the systematic collection, analysis, and dissemination of data crucial for various health and security scenarios. Despite its importance, standardized Guidelines for Surveillance Reporting (G-SIRE) are lacking, leading to inconsistencies and affecting data reliability and comparability. To address this gap, this study aimed to develop the G-SIRE, tailored to improve the clarity, transparency, and consistency of surveillance reports, thereby increasing the accuracy and usability of surveillance data for better public health outcomes. Methods: The methodology adhered to the EQUATOR Network standards, employing a multidimensional approach with a diverse expert team. The process included forming a research committee of multidisciplinary experts, conducting a thorough literature review of recent surveillance report publications, reviewing existing reporting guidelines, and developing a new set of guidelines.Continuous updates and revisions are planned to keep the guidelines relevant and effective. Results: Significant progress has been made as of November 2023 in developing comprehensive reporting guidelines for surveillance reports. A detailed checklist and Explanation & Elaboration documents have been formulated, which are anticipated to be finalized and published by December 2023. Conclusion The G-SIRE guidelines signify a major advancement in standardizing surveillance.They provide a structured approach that increases scientific accuracy, transparency, and practical applicability in this domain. The guidelines are expected to improve the quality of surveillance reporting significantly, contributing to the advancement of public health research and discourse.

Objectives: Outbreak reports are essential for documenting the spread of and responses to disease outbreaks. However, there is a lack of standardized reporting guidelines that encompass broader perspectives on outbreaks. We aimed to develop a universal reporting guideline applicable to diverse outbreak reports and community epidemic interventions, the “Guidelines for Community Outbreak Investigation Reporting (G-CORE).” Methods: G-CORE is designed to address the challenges in documenting various outbreak scenarios, including infectious diseases and non-infectious environmental hazards. The development of G-CORE involved a structured process, including a comprehensive literature review of recent outbreak reports from leading journals and an analysis of existing reporting guidelines. The process also involved project registration with the EQUATOR Network and collaboration with experts in various fields. Following the initial drafting, an internal (team) review was conducted to evaluate the guidelines' robustness and relevance. Subsequently, the guidelines underwent revision based on feedback from external experts and potential users, including authors with experience in outbreak reporting. The project also includes plans for widespread dissemination and periodic revisions to adapt to developments and user feedback. Results: G-CORE will provide a structured framework for reporting outbreak investigations, comprising a detailed checklist and Explanation & Elaboration documents. Conclusion G-CORE establishes a new standard in outbreak reporting, facilitating comprehensive, clear, and actionable public health communications. Its development marks a significant advance in the documentation and management of public health outbreaks.