Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Purpose: This study aimed to validate pivotal pre-test probability (PTP)-coronary artery disease (CAD) models (CAD consortium model and IJC-CAD model). Materials and Methods: Traditional PTP models-CAD consortium models: two traditional PTP models were used under the CAD consortium framework, namely CAD1 and CAD2. Machine learning (ML)-based PTP models: two ML-based PTP models were derived from CAD1 and CAD2, and used to enhance predictive capabilities [ML-CAD2 and ML-IJC (IJC-CAD)]. The primary endpoint was obstructive CAD. The performance evaluation of these PTP models was conducted using receiver-operating characteristic analysis. Results: The study included 238 participants, among whom 157 individuals (65.9% of the total sample) had CAD. The IJC-CAD model demonstrated the highest performance with an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.860 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.812– 0.909]. Following this, the ML-CAD2 model exhibited an AUC of 0.814 (95% CI: 0.758–0.870), CAD1 showed an AUC of 0.767 (95% CI: 0.705–0.830), and CAD2 had an AUC of 0.785 (95% CI: 0.726–0.845). Each of the PTP models was adjusted to have a CAD score cutoff that classified cases with a sensitivity of over 95%. The respective cutoff values were as follows: CAD1 and CAD2 >12, MLCAD2 >0.380, and IJC-CAD >0.367. All PTP models achieved a CAD sensitivity of over 95%. Similar to the AUC performance, the accuracy of the PTP models was highest for IJC-CAD, reaching 80.3%. The accuracy of ML-CAD2 was 77.7%, while that for CAD1 and CAD2 was 74.8% and 75.2%, respectively. Conclusion ML-CAD2 and IJC-CAD showed superior performance compared to traditional existing models (CAD1 and CAD2)

Objective: This study compared the effects of preperitoneal pelvic packing (PPP) versus resuscitation alone, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion of the aorta (REBOA) with PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. Methods: A comprehensive search was performed using multiple databases, trial registries, grey literature, and conference proceedings from inception until March 10, 2022. The risk of bias in non-randomized studies of intervention (ROBINS-I) and ROB 2.0 tools were used to assess the risk of bias for non-randomized studies and randomized controlled trials, respectively. The certainty of evidence was rated using the GRADE approach. Results: Twenty-two studies, including 1,762 participants, were retrieved. Based on randomized controlled trials, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (risk ratio [RR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.22-2.49; very low certainty of evidence) and improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.19; 95% CI 0.01-3.72; very low certainty of evidence). Based on non-randomized studies, there was a high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP versus angioembolization on improving the mortality rate (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.48-1.21; I2=54%; very low certainty of evidence), improving the hemorrhagic mortality rate (RR=0.66; 95% CI 0.18-2.46; I2=75%; very low certainty of evidence), and reducing the post procedural complications (RR=0.76; 95% CI 0.39-1.48; I2=66%; very low certainty of evidence). Conclusion There is high uncertainty regarding the effects of PPP compared to resuscitation only, angioembolization, PPP with pelvic stabilization, REBOA following PPP, pelvic stabilization, and REBOA. (Registration No. CRD42022311628)

Background: s/Aims: Reported incidence of extrahepatic bile duct cancer is higher in Asians than in Western populations. Korea, in particular, is one of the countries with the highest incidence rates of extrahepatic bile duct cancer in the world. Although research and innovative therapeutic modalities for extrahepatic bile duct cancer are emerging, clinical guidelines are currently unavailable in Korea. The Korean Society of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Surgery in collaboration with related societies (Korean Pancreatic and Biliary Surgery Society, Korean Society of Abdominal Radiology, Korean Society of Medical Oncology, Korean Society of Radiation Oncology, Korean Society of Pathologists, and Korean Society of Nuclear Medicine) decided to establish clinical guideline for extrahepatic bile duct cancer in June 2021. Methods: Contents of the guidelines were developed through subgroup meetings for each key question and a preliminary draft was finalized through a Clinical Guidelines Committee workshop. Results: In November 2021, the finalized draft was presented for public scrutiny during a formal hearing. Conclusions The extrahepatic guideline committee believed that this guideline could be helpful in the treatment of patients.

Emergency department (ED) triage systems are used to classify the severity and urgency of emergency patients, and Korean medical institutions use the Korean Triage and Acuity Scale (KTAS). During the COVID-19 pandemic, appropriate treatment for emergency patients was delayed due to various circumstances, such as overcrowding of EDs, lack of medical workforce resources, and increased workload on medical staff. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of the KTAS in predicting the urgency of emergency patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods This study retrospectively reviewed patients who were treated in the ED during the pandemic period from January 2020 to June 2021. Patients were divided into COVID-19–screening negative (SN) and COVID-19–screening positive (SP) groups. We compared the predictability of the KTAS for urgent patients between the two groups. Results From a total of 107,480 patients, 62,776 patients (58.4%) were included in the SN group and 44,704 (41.6%) were included in the SP group. The odds ratios for severity variables at each KTAS level revealed a more evident discriminatory power of the KTAS for severity variables in the SN group (P<0.001). The predictability of the KTAS for severity variables was higher in the SN group than in the SP group (area under the curve, P<0.001). Conclusion During the pandemic, the KTAS had low accuracy in predicting patients in critical condition in the ED. Therefore, in future pandemic periods, supplementation of the current ED triage system should be considered in order to accurately classify the severity of patients.

Objectives: . Facial nerve sacrifice during radical parotidectomy can impair quality of life. This study assessed the effectiveness of single-stage facial reanimation surgery performed concurrently with radical parotidectomy in restoring facial function. Methods: . A retrospective analysis was conducted on patients who underwent single-stage facial reanimation combined with radical parotidectomy. The techniques employed included selective reinnervation and orthodromic temporalis tendon transfer. Outcomes were evaluated using the modified House-Brackmann and Terzis grading systems, Emotrics facial assessment, and the Facial Disability Index (FDI). Results: . Among the 13 patients studied (median age, 54 years; 69% male), 10 underwent selective reinnervation. Of these, nine patients demonstrated improvement, achieving House-Brackmann grade III and Terzis grade 4 or 5. The other three patients underwent tendon transfer and achieved moderate functional outcomes. Emotrics analysis revealed balanced facial symmetry in the selective reinnervation group. Furthermore, FDI scores indicated satisfactory physical and social/well-being functions. Conclusion . Single-stage facial reanimation effectively restores facial function in patients undergoing radical parotidectomy. This approach offers meaningful benefits in the early recovery of facial function.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.