Purpose: This study evaluated the educational impact of an artificial intelligence (AI)–based decision support system for breast ultrasonography (US) on medical professionals not specialized in breast imaging. Methods: In this multi-case, multi-reader study, educational materials, including American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) descriptors, were provided alongside corresponding AI results during training. The AI system presented results in the form of AIheatmaps, AI scores, and AI-provided BI-RADS assessment categories. Forty-two readers evaluated the test set in three sessions: the first session (S1) occurred before the educational intervention, the second session (S2) followed education without AI assistance, and the third session (S3) took place after education with AI assistance. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and overall performance, were compared between the sessions. Results: The mean sensitivity increased from 66.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59.2% to 73.7%) to 88.7% (95% CI, 84.1% to 93.3%), with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001), and the AUC non-significantly increased from 0.664 (95% CI, 0.606 to 0.723) to 0.684 (95% CI, 0.620 to 0.748) (P=0.300). Both measures were higher in S2 than in S1. The AI-achieved AUC was comparable to that of the expert reader (0.747 [95% CI, 0.640 to 0.855] vs. 0.803 [95% CI, 0.706 to 0.900], P=0.217). Additionally, with AI assistance, the mean AUC for inexperienced readers was not significantly different from that of the expert reader (0.745 [95% CI, 0.660 to 0.830] vs. 0.803 [95% CI, 0.706 to 0.900], P=0.120). Conclusion The mean AUC and sensitivity improved after incorporating AI into breast US education and interpretation. AI systems with high-level performance for breast US can potentially be used as educational tools in the interpretation of breast US images.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background: Sarcopenia, a multifactorial disorder involving metabolic disturbance, suggests potential for metabolite biomarkers. Carnitine (CN), essential for skeletal muscle energy metabolism, may be a candidate biomarker. We investigated whether CN metabolites are biomarkers for sarcopenia. Methods: Associations between the CN metabolites identified from an animal model of sarcopenia and muscle cells and sarcopenia status were evaluated in men from an age-matched discovery (72 cases, 72 controls) and a validation (21 cases, 47 controls) cohort. Results: An association between CN metabolites and sarcopenia showed in mouse and cell studies. In the discovery cohort, plasma C5-CN levels were lower in sarcopenic men (P=0.005). C5-CN levels in men tended to be associated with handgrip strength (HGS) (P=0.098) and were significantly associated with skeletal muscle mass (P=0.003). Each standard deviation increase in C5-CN levels reduced the odds of low muscle mass (odd ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.89). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of CN score using a regression equation of C5-CN levels, for sarcopenia was 0.635 (95% CI, 0.544 to 0.726). In the discovery cohort, addition of CN score to HGS significantly improved AUROC from 0.646 (95% CI, 0.575 to 0.717; HGS only) to 0.727 (95% CI, 0.643 to 0.810; P=0.006; HGS+CN score). The improvement was confirmed in the validation cohort (AUROC=0.563; 95% CI, 0.470 to 0.656 for HGS; and AUROC=0.712; 95% CI, 0.569 to 0.855 for HGS+CN score; P=0.027). Conclusion C5-CN, indicative of low muscle mass, is a potential circulating biomarker for sarcopenia in men. Further studies are required to confirm these results and explore sarcopenia-related metabolomic changes.

Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.

Purpose: This study evaluated the educational impact of an artificial intelligence (AI)–based decision support system for breast ultrasonography (US) on medical professionals not specialized in breast imaging. Methods: In this multi-case, multi-reader study, educational materials, including American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) descriptors, were provided alongside corresponding AI results during training. The AI system presented results in the form of AIheatmaps, AI scores, and AI-provided BI-RADS assessment categories. Forty-two readers evaluated the test set in three sessions: the first session (S1) occurred before the educational intervention, the second session (S2) followed education without AI assistance, and the third session (S3) took place after education with AI assistance. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and overall performance, were compared between the sessions. Results: The mean sensitivity increased from 66.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59.2% to 73.7%) to 88.7% (95% CI, 84.1% to 93.3%), with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001), and the AUC non-significantly increased from 0.664 (95% CI, 0.606 to 0.723) to 0.684 (95% CI, 0.620 to 0.748) (P=0.300). Both measures were higher in S2 than in S1. The AI-achieved AUC was comparable to that of the expert reader (0.747 [95% CI, 0.640 to 0.855] vs. 0.803 [95% CI, 0.706 to 0.900], P=0.217). Additionally, with AI assistance, the mean AUC for inexperienced readers was not significantly different from that of the expert reader (0.745 [95% CI, 0.660 to 0.830] vs. 0.803 [95% CI, 0.706 to 0.900], P=0.120). Conclusion The mean AUC and sensitivity improved after incorporating AI into breast US education and interpretation. AI systems with high-level performance for breast US can potentially be used as educational tools in the interpretation of breast US images.

Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.

Incidentally detected gallbladder polyps (GBPs) and gallbladder wall thickening (GBWT) are frequently encountered in clinical practice. However, characterizing GBPs and GBWT in asymptomatic patients can be challenging and may result in overtreatment, including unnecessary follow-ups or surgeries. The Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology (KSAR) Clinical Practice Guideline Committee has developed expert recommendations that focus on standardized imaging interpretation and follow-up strategies for both GBPs and GBWT, with support from the Korean Society of Radiology and KSAR. These guidelines, which address 24 key questions, aim to standardize the approach for the interpretation of imaging findings, reporting, imaging-based workups, and surveillance of incidentally detected GBPs and GBWT. This recommendation promotes evidence-based practice, facilitates communication between radiologists and referring physicians, and reduces unnecessary interventions.

Purpose: This study evaluated the educational impact of an artificial intelligence (AI)–based decision support system for breast ultrasonography (US) on medical professionals not specialized in breast imaging. Methods: In this multi-case, multi-reader study, educational materials, including American College of Radiology Breast Imaging Reporting and Data System (BI-RADS) descriptors, were provided alongside corresponding AI results during training. The AI system presented results in the form of AIheatmaps, AI scores, and AI-provided BI-RADS assessment categories. Forty-two readers evaluated the test set in three sessions: the first session (S1) occurred before the educational intervention, the second session (S2) followed education without AI assistance, and the third session (S3) took place after education with AI assistance. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, specificity, and overall performance, were compared between the sessions. Results: The mean sensitivity increased from 66.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 59.2% to 73.7%) to 88.7% (95% CI, 84.1% to 93.3%), with a statistically significant difference (P<0.001), and the AUC non-significantly increased from 0.664 (95% CI, 0.606 to 0.723) to 0.684 (95% CI, 0.620 to 0.748) (P=0.300). Both measures were higher in S2 than in S1. The AI-achieved AUC was comparable to that of the expert reader (0.747 [95% CI, 0.640 to 0.855] vs. 0.803 [95% CI, 0.706 to 0.900], P=0.217). Additionally, with AI assistance, the mean AUC for inexperienced readers was not significantly different from that of the expert reader (0.745 [95% CI, 0.660 to 0.830] vs. 0.803 [95% CI, 0.706 to 0.900], P=0.120). Conclusion The mean AUC and sensitivity improved after incorporating AI into breast US education and interpretation. AI systems with high-level performance for breast US can potentially be used as educational tools in the interpretation of breast US images.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

Background: Sarcopenia, a multifactorial disorder involving metabolic disturbance, suggests potential for metabolite biomarkers. Carnitine (CN), essential for skeletal muscle energy metabolism, may be a candidate biomarker. We investigated whether CN metabolites are biomarkers for sarcopenia. Methods: Associations between the CN metabolites identified from an animal model of sarcopenia and muscle cells and sarcopenia status were evaluated in men from an age-matched discovery (72 cases, 72 controls) and a validation (21 cases, 47 controls) cohort. Results: An association between CN metabolites and sarcopenia showed in mouse and cell studies. In the discovery cohort, plasma C5-CN levels were lower in sarcopenic men (P=0.005). C5-CN levels in men tended to be associated with handgrip strength (HGS) (P=0.098) and were significantly associated with skeletal muscle mass (P=0.003). Each standard deviation increase in C5-CN levels reduced the odds of low muscle mass (odd ratio, 0.61; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42 to 0.89). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of CN score using a regression equation of C5-CN levels, for sarcopenia was 0.635 (95% CI, 0.544 to 0.726). In the discovery cohort, addition of CN score to HGS significantly improved AUROC from 0.646 (95% CI, 0.575 to 0.717; HGS only) to 0.727 (95% CI, 0.643 to 0.810; P=0.006; HGS+CN score). The improvement was confirmed in the validation cohort (AUROC=0.563; 95% CI, 0.470 to 0.656 for HGS; and AUROC=0.712; 95% CI, 0.569 to 0.855 for HGS+CN score; P=0.027). Conclusion C5-CN, indicative of low muscle mass, is a potential circulating biomarker for sarcopenia in men. Further studies are required to confirm these results and explore sarcopenia-related metabolomic changes.