Background: Left bundle branch block (LBBB) significantly increases the risk of left ventricular systolic dysfunction (LVSD) due to cardiac dyssynchrony. Although artificial intelligence–enabled electrocardiography (AI-ECG) mod‑ els show promise in detecting LVSD, their performance in LBBB patients remains underexplored. We hypothesized that an AI-ECG model clinically validated for detecting LVSD would accurately detect LVSD and predict future clinical outcomes in LBBB patients. Methods: In this retrospective multicenter study, 5,689 expert-validated LBBB ECGs collected from 2,813 patients between 2016 and 2024 were analyzed using a previously developed and validated AI-ECG model. LVSD was defined as an ejection fraction of ≤ 40%. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating char‑ acteristic curve (AUROC), the area under the precision-recall curve (AUPRC), sensitivity, and specificity. Patients were stratified into high- and low-risk groups based on a threshold that achieved 90% sensitivity. A Kaplan–Meier analysis was used to compare clinical outcomes. Results: Among the 2,813 LBBB patients (mean age, 70.7 years; male sex, 43.7%), hypertension and a history of heart failure were common. The AiTiALVSD model showed strong diagnostic performance for LVSD (AUROC, 0.930 [95% CI, 0.924–0.937]; AUPRC, 0.913 [95% CI, 0.902–0.923]; sensitivity, 0.979; specificity, 0.473). During the mean follow-up of 4.1 years, high-risk patients had significantly higher hazards than low-risk patients for all-cause mortality (adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.87; 95% CI, 1.53–2.28), implantable cardioverter defibrillator/cardiac resynchronization therapy implantation (adjusted HR, 15.2; 95% CI, 7.51–30.77), and cardiovascular hospitalization (adjusted HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.96–1.28). Conclusions AiTiALVSD effectively detects LVSD and stratifies long-term cardiovascular risk in LBBB patients, support‑ ing its clinical utility for early detection and patient management.

Olanzapine is a second-generation antipsychotic drug associated with the development of type 2 diabetes. However, the development and remission of diabetes with glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) antibody (Ab) positivity related to olanzapine treatment have not been reported. Here, we present the case of a 33-year-old man taking olanzapine who was diagnosed with diabetes with GAD Ab positivity complicated by diabetic ketoacidosis (DKA). After discontinuation of the drug and tight glycemic control, his diabetes remitted, and the GAD Ab became negative spontaneously after 18 months. The classification of diabetes is challenging because of overlapping autoimmune and metabolic features. Olanzapine may have contributed to pancreatic β-cell apoptosis, which could potentially trigger autoimmunity and the development of type 1 diabetes-like features (DKA as the initial presentation, a low C-peptide level, and GAD Ab positivity). The rapid amelioration of hyperglycemia and weight reduction may be responsible for the remission of diabetes after the discontinuation of olanzapine.

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects women with diverse pathological phenotypes, but little is known about the effects of this variation on perinatal outcomes. We explored the metabolic phenotypes of GDM and their impact on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Methods: Women diagnosed with gestational glucose intolerance or GDM were categorized into subgroups according to their prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) and the median values of the gestational Matsuda and Stumvoll indices. Logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the odds of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as large-for-gestational age (LGA), small-for-gestational age, preterm birth, low Apgar score, and cesarean section. Results: A total of 309 women were included, with a median age of 31 years and a median BMI of 22.3 kg/m2. Women with a higher pre-pregnancy BMI had a higher risk of LGA newborns (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for pre-pregnancy BMI ≥25 kg/m2 compared to 20–23 kg/m2, 4.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.99 to 9.12; P<0.001; P for trend=0.001), but the risk of other adverse pregnancy outcomes did not differ according to pre-pregnancy BMI. Women with insulin resistance had a higher risk of LGA (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.47; P=0.043) and cesarean section (aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.50; P=0.003) than women in the insulin-sensitive group. In contrast, defective β-cell function did not affect adverse pregnancy outcomes. Conclusion Different metabolic phenotypes of GDM were associated with heterogeneous pregnancy outcomes. Women with obesity and those with insulin resistance are at greater risk of adverse outcomes and might need strict glycemic management during pregnancy.

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects women with diverse pathological phenotypes, but little is known about the effects of this variation on perinatal outcomes. We explored the metabolic phenotypes of GDM and their impact on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Methods: Women diagnosed with gestational glucose intolerance or GDM were categorized into subgroups according to their prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) and the median values of the gestational Matsuda and Stumvoll indices. Logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the odds of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as large-for-gestational age (LGA), small-for-gestational age, preterm birth, low Apgar score, and cesarean section. Results: A total of 309 women were included, with a median age of 31 years and a median BMI of 22.3 kg/m2. Women with a higher pre-pregnancy BMI had a higher risk of LGA newborns (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for pre-pregnancy BMI ≥25 kg/m2 compared to 20–23 kg/m2, 4.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.99 to 9.12; P<0.001; P for trend=0.001), but the risk of other adverse pregnancy outcomes did not differ according to pre-pregnancy BMI. Women with insulin resistance had a higher risk of LGA (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.47; P=0.043) and cesarean section (aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.50; P=0.003) than women in the insulin-sensitive group. In contrast, defective β-cell function did not affect adverse pregnancy outcomes. Conclusion Different metabolic phenotypes of GDM were associated with heterogeneous pregnancy outcomes. Women with obesity and those with insulin resistance are at greater risk of adverse outcomes and might need strict glycemic management during pregnancy.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects women with diverse pathological phenotypes, but little is known about the effects of this variation on perinatal outcomes. We explored the metabolic phenotypes of GDM and their impact on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Methods: Women diagnosed with gestational glucose intolerance or GDM were categorized into subgroups according to their prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) and the median values of the gestational Matsuda and Stumvoll indices. Logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the odds of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as large-for-gestational age (LGA), small-for-gestational age, preterm birth, low Apgar score, and cesarean section. Results: A total of 309 women were included, with a median age of 31 years and a median BMI of 22.3 kg/m2. Women with a higher pre-pregnancy BMI had a higher risk of LGA newborns (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for pre-pregnancy BMI ≥25 kg/m2 compared to 20–23 kg/m2, 4.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.99 to 9.12; P<0.001; P for trend=0.001), but the risk of other adverse pregnancy outcomes did not differ according to pre-pregnancy BMI. Women with insulin resistance had a higher risk of LGA (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.47; P=0.043) and cesarean section (aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.50; P=0.003) than women in the insulin-sensitive group. In contrast, defective β-cell function did not affect adverse pregnancy outcomes. Conclusion Different metabolic phenotypes of GDM were associated with heterogeneous pregnancy outcomes. Women with obesity and those with insulin resistance are at greater risk of adverse outcomes and might need strict glycemic management during pregnancy.

Background: Gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) affects women with diverse pathological phenotypes, but little is known about the effects of this variation on perinatal outcomes. We explored the metabolic phenotypes of GDM and their impact on adverse pregnancy outcomes. Methods: Women diagnosed with gestational glucose intolerance or GDM were categorized into subgroups according to their prepregnancy body mass index (BMI) and the median values of the gestational Matsuda and Stumvoll indices. Logistic regression analysis was employed to assess the odds of adverse pregnancy outcomes, such as large-for-gestational age (LGA), small-for-gestational age, preterm birth, low Apgar score, and cesarean section. Results: A total of 309 women were included, with a median age of 31 years and a median BMI of 22.3 kg/m2. Women with a higher pre-pregnancy BMI had a higher risk of LGA newborns (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] for pre-pregnancy BMI ≥25 kg/m2 compared to 20–23 kg/m2, 4.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.99 to 9.12; P<0.001; P for trend=0.001), but the risk of other adverse pregnancy outcomes did not differ according to pre-pregnancy BMI. Women with insulin resistance had a higher risk of LGA (aOR, 1.88; 95% CI, 1.02 to 3.47; P=0.043) and cesarean section (aOR, 2.12; 95% CI, 1.29 to 3.50; P=0.003) than women in the insulin-sensitive group. In contrast, defective β-cell function did not affect adverse pregnancy outcomes. Conclusion Different metabolic phenotypes of GDM were associated with heterogeneous pregnancy outcomes. Women with obesity and those with insulin resistance are at greater risk of adverse outcomes and might need strict glycemic management during pregnancy.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Colorectal cancer is the third most common cancer in Korea and the third leading cause of death from cancer. Treatment outcomes for colon cancer are steadily improving due to national health screening programs with advances in diagnostic methods, surgical techniques, and therapeutic agents.. The Korea Colon Cancer Multidisciplinary (KCCM) Committee intends to provide professionals who treat colon cancer with the most up-to-date, evidence-based practice guidelines to improve outcomes and help them make decisions that reflect their patients’ values and preferences. These guidelines have been established by consensus reached by the KCCM Guideline Committee based on a systematic literature review and evidence synthesis and by considering the national health insurance system in real clinical practice settings. Each recommendation is presented with a recommendation strength and level of evidence based on the consensus of the committee.