Background: We developed a simplified variant of the ADV score, the AFP-PIVKAII (AP) score for post-transplant hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) prognosis, which considers only AFP and PIVKA-II levels excluding morphometric tumor size information from the ADV score. This study investigated the prognostic performance of the AP score in predicting HCC recurrence and overall survival (OS) after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Methods: We analyzed 843 patients with HCC who underwent LDLT between 2006 and 2015, assessing HCC recurrence and OS in relation to AP score. Results: The median pretransplant AFP and PIVKA-II levels were 12.8 ng/mL and 27 mAU/mL, respectively. The median and mean AP scores were 2.6 log (range: 0.6–9.2 log) and 2.9±1.1 log, respectively. The 5-year time-dependent area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for the AP score in predicting post-transplant HCC recurrence was 0.672 (p<0.001). HCC recurrence and OS curves along AP score intervals of 1.0 log showed statistical differences in accordance with the AP scores (both p<0.001). Using a Youden index J-derived AP score cutoff of 4.0 log, two-tiered groups (ADV <4.0 log vs. ADV ≥4.0 log) showed statistically significant differences in HCC recurrence and OS (both p<0.001). Harrell’s c-indices for AP score with cutoff of 4.0 log and ADV scores with cutoff of 5.0 log regarding HCC recurrence and OS were similar. Conclusion The AP score functions as an integrated surrogate marker for predicting post-transplant outcomes in patients with HCC undergoing LDLT. It may serve as a simplified alternative to the ADV score, particularly in patients with small HCCs.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

The multi-decade household humidifier disinfectant poisoning tragedy (HHDT) in South Korea highlights the importance of investigating government failures. This study aims to identify and discuss key failures and shortcomings in the South Korean authorities’ approach to regulating humidifier disinfectants (HDs) and monitoring cases of chemical poisoning. We reviewed both the HD risk prevention measures that the South Korean Ministry of Environment (KME) should have implemented under the Toxic Chemicals Control Act (TCCA) (1991–2013).Polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate (PHMG), a new chemical, was approved for use as a disinfectant under the TCCA. KME declared PHMG non-hazardous based solely on preproduction documentation provided by the industry. In addition, the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCPA) failed to detect the HHDT that had accumulated each year for more than a decade. KME’s neglect of its responsibilities, coupled with KDCPA’s lack of chemical poisoning surveillance systems, led to the accumulation of widespread HHDT.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

The multi-decade household humidifier disinfectant poisoning tragedy (HHDT) in South Korea highlights the importance of investigating government failures. This study aims to identify and discuss key failures and shortcomings in the South Korean authorities’ approach to regulating humidifier disinfectants (HDs) and monitoring cases of chemical poisoning. We reviewed both the HD risk prevention measures that the South Korean Ministry of Environment (KME) should have implemented under the Toxic Chemicals Control Act (TCCA) (1991–2013).Polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate (PHMG), a new chemical, was approved for use as a disinfectant under the TCCA. KME declared PHMG non-hazardous based solely on preproduction documentation provided by the industry. In addition, the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCPA) failed to detect the HHDT that had accumulated each year for more than a decade. KME’s neglect of its responsibilities, coupled with KDCPA’s lack of chemical poisoning surveillance systems, led to the accumulation of widespread HHDT.

The multi-decade household humidifier disinfectant poisoning tragedy (HHDT) in South Korea highlights the importance of investigating government failures. This study aims to identify and discuss key failures and shortcomings in the South Korean authorities’ approach to regulating humidifier disinfectants (HDs) and monitoring cases of chemical poisoning. We reviewed both the HD risk prevention measures that the South Korean Ministry of Environment (KME) should have implemented under the Toxic Chemicals Control Act (TCCA) (1991–2013).Polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate (PHMG), a new chemical, was approved for use as a disinfectant under the TCCA. KME declared PHMG non-hazardous based solely on preproduction documentation provided by the industry. In addition, the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCPA) failed to detect the HHDT that had accumulated each year for more than a decade. KME’s neglect of its responsibilities, coupled with KDCPA’s lack of chemical poisoning surveillance systems, led to the accumulation of widespread HHDT.

The multi-decade household humidifier disinfectant poisoning tragedy (HHDT) in South Korea highlights the importance of investigating government failures. This study aims to identify and discuss key failures and shortcomings in the South Korean authorities’ approach to regulating humidifier disinfectants (HDs) and monitoring cases of chemical poisoning. We reviewed both the HD risk prevention measures that the South Korean Ministry of Environment (KME) should have implemented under the Toxic Chemicals Control Act (TCCA) (1991–2013).Polyhexamethylene guanidine phosphate (PHMG), a new chemical, was approved for use as a disinfectant under the TCCA. KME declared PHMG non-hazardous based solely on preproduction documentation provided by the industry. In addition, the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCPA) failed to detect the HHDT that had accumulated each year for more than a decade. KME’s neglect of its responsibilities, coupled with KDCPA’s lack of chemical poisoning surveillance systems, led to the accumulation of widespread HHDT.