Objective To compare the performance of 7 Chinese-developed GenAI models (DeepSeek, Wenxin Yiyan, Tongyi, Doubao, Kimi, Hunyuan, and iFLYTEK Spark) in responding to common diseases of the pediatric genitourinary system and to explore their potential applications.Methods A total of 80 questions covering basic disease information, diagnosis, treatment, and prognosis related to “hypospadias, hydronephrosis, and cryptorchidism” were developed as prompts.The models were tested under 3 modes:“quick thinking, ”“deep thinking, ” and “deep thinking + internet access.” The results were evaluated in a blinded review by two pediatric urologists.The responses were graded into 4 levels—A, B, C, and D—based on accuracy, completeness, and relevance.The proportions of responses rated as A and A+B were statistically analyzed and compared across the different models/modes.Results The “deep thinking” mode of DeepSeek demonstrated the best performance, with 88% of responses rated as A and 96% rated as A+B.DeepSeek (deep thinking + internet access), Doubao (quick thinking), Hunyuan (deep thinking), and Doubao (deep thinking + internet access) followed closely, also showing excellent response capabilities.Among the top 5 models/modes, significant differences were observed in the proportion of Alevel responses (P＜0.05), while differences in the proportion of A+B-level responses were not statistically significant (P＞0.05).Conclusion Certain Chinese-developed GenAI models, represented by DeepSeek (deep thinking), demonstrate significant application potential.However, they still cannot consistently provide recommendations rated at the A+B level (recommended grade or higher) with 100% accuracy.In clinical practice, both doctors and patients should view GenAI as an auxiliary tool for education and information acquisition rather than as a final decision-making authority.All information must be reviewed and confirmed by professional physicians.

This work was aimed at predicting and verifying B-cell epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 E protein through bioinformatics methods,and clarifying the dominant B cell epitopes with mouse polyclonal antibody serum prepared through SARS-CoV-2 re-combinant E protein immunization and human positive serum vaccinated with inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine.The structural and B-cell linear epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 E protein were predicted with SOPMA,Expasy,SWISS-MODEL,IEDB database,and Bepid-2.0 software.Candidate epitopes were expressed as GST-tagged recombinant protein fragments in an E.coli sys-tem,and their immunoreactivity with mouse and human poly-clonal positive serum against SARS-CoV-2 E protein was de-tected by western blotting and indirect ELISA,respectively.The epitope prediction results showed that E protein contained linear B cell epitopes Ser6-Val14 and Tyr57-Pro71,and the conformational epitopes of Glu8-Val12,Leu39-Tyr59,and Ser60-Leu65.The GST tagged recombinant E protein fragments of E1 and E3,containing Ser6-Val14 and Tyr57-Pro71 epitopes,respectively,as well as E2 without an epitope sequence as a control,were expressed in an E.coli expression system and successfully purified with an Ni-NTA column.Western blotting and indirect ELISA analysis indicated that all mouse and human SARS-CoV-2 positive sera positively reacted with only E1 and E3 proteins,but negatively reacted with E2 protein,thus indicating that the corresponding epitope prediction with Ser6-Val14 and Tyr57-Pro71 was correct.This study successfully predicted and preliminarily identified two linear B cell epitopes of SARS-CoV-2 E protein,thus providing a reference for the preparation of new coronavirus vaccines and the analysis of immune response characteristics.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: Total neoadjuvant therapy (TNT) is becoming the standard of care for locally advanced rectal cancer. However, surgery is deferred for months after completion, which may lead to fibrosis and increased surgical difficulty. The aim of this study was to assess whether TNT (TNT-RAPIDO) is associated with increased difficulty of total mesorectal excision (TME) compared with long-course chemoradiotherapy (LCRT) and upfront surgery. Methods: Twelve laparoscopic videos of low anterior resection with TME for rectal cancer were prospectively collected from January 2020 to October 2021, with 4 videos in each arm. Seven colorectal surgeons assessed the videos independently, graded the difficulty of TME using a visual analog scale and attempted to identify which category the videos belonged to. Results: The median age was 67 years, and 10 patients were male. The median interval to surgery from radiotherapy was 13 weeks in the LCRT group and 24 weeks in the TNT-RAPIDO group. There was no significant difference in the visual analog scale for difficulty in TME between the 3 groups (LCRT, 3.2; TNT-RAPIDO, 4.6; upfront, 4.1; P=0.12). A subgroup analysis showed similar difficulty between groups (LCRT 3.2 vs. TNT-RAPIDO 4.6, P=0.05; TNT-RAPIDO 4.6 vs. upfront 4.1, P=0.54). During video assessments, surgeons correctly identified the prior treatment modality in 42% of the cases. TNT-RAPIDO videos had the highest recognition rate (71%), significantly outperforming both LCRT (29%) and upfront surgery (25%, P=0.01). Conclusion TNT does not appear to increase the surgical difficulty of TME.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Objective To investigate the effect of Ophiopogonin D on lipopolysaccharide(LPS)-induced apoptosis of alveolar epithelial cells by regulating the interleukin-6(IL-6)/Janus kinase 2(JAK2)/signal transducer and activator of transcription 3(STAT3)signaling pathway.Methods A549 AT Ⅱ cells cultured in vitro were randomly divided into four groups:control group,LPS group,LPS+Ophiopogonin D group,LPS+Ophiopogonin D+colivelin(JAK2/STAT3 signal activator)group,except for the control group,and cells in all other groups were established injury models while being grouped with Ophiopogonin D and colivelin for treatment.Cell counting kit-8(CCK-8)experiment and flow cytometry were applied to detect cell proliferation and apoptosis in each group;Western blotting was applied to detect the expression of IL-6/JAK2/STAT3 signaling pathway proteins of cells in each group.Results The apoptosis rates of A549 cells in control group,LPS group,LPS+Ophiopogonin D group and LPS+Ophiopogonin D+colivelin group were(2.52±0.73)％,(52.43±4.14)％,(1.67±0.52)％and(47.94±3.43)％;IL-6 protein levels were 0.14±0.03,0.49±0.05,0.17±0.04 and 0.45±0.06,and p-JAK2/JAK2 protein levels were 0.17±0.04,0.64±0.08,0.19±0.06 and 0.61±0.07;p-STAT3/STAT3 protein levels were 0.20±0.06,0.69±0.10,0.22±0.07 and 0.65±0.09;the apoptosis rates of AT Ⅱ cells were(3.01±0.69)％,(55.16±3.94)％,(2.35±0.71)％and(50.28±3.78)％;the levels of IL-6 protein were 0.11±0.03,0.87±0.13,0.19±0.04 and 0.84±0.12;the p-JAK2/JAK2 protein levels were 0.13±0.04,0.56±0.08,0.15±0.03 and 0.53±0.07;p-STAT3/STAT3 protein levels were 0.30±0.08,0.79±0.14,0.33±0.09 and 0.75±0.13.The above indexes:control group,LPS+Ophiopogonin D group compared with LPS group,LPS+Ophiopogonin D+colivelin group compared with LPS+Ophiopogonin D group,the differences were statistically significant(all P＜0.05).Conclusion Ophiopogonin D can reduce LPS induced inflammation and oxidative stress levels by inhibiting the activation of IL-6/JAK2/STAT3 signaling pathway,ultimately reducing LPS-induced apoptosis of alveolar epithelial cells.

Humans ; Blast Crisis/genetics* ; Leukemia, Promyelocytic, Acute/genetics* ; Oncogene Proteins, Fusion/genetics* ; Tretinoin