Objective: To explain process of developing basic veterinary clinical performance guidelines, based on frequently observable clinical manifestations, thereby supporting competencybased veterinary education in Korea. Methods: A structured review of learning outcomes established by Korean Association of Veterinary Medical Colleges (KAVMC) was conducted by a planning committee including veterinary educators, practitioners, and advisory members. Owner-oriented descriptions were used to frame each performance task, and each was mapped to corresponding learning outcomes. These tasks were aligned with learning outcomes recommended by the KAVMC to support the development of communication, clinical reasoning, and performance-related competencies among veterinary students, thereby enhancing day-one clinical readiness. Results: In total, 63 clinical manifestations for a guidebook format that can be used for clinical education were identified and categorized by organ systems that are described in language understandable to animal owners. Conclusions and Relevance: The basic veterinary clinical performance guidelines based on common clinical manifestations would serve as a vital component in veterinary education to reinforce core graduation competencies.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

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.

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.

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.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

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.