Background: Lithium hydroxide (LiOH) is increasingly used in electric vehicle battery production; however, its health effects in the work environment remain underreported. This study characterizes the acute health effects on workers following accidental occupational exposure to LiOH at a Korean lithium plant in March 2024. Methods: We analyzed health effects from two LiOH exposure accidents on March 6 and 9, 2024, involving 50–100 kg powder spills. Two datasets were examined: acute symptoms from 115 workers who visited hospitals immediately after exposure, and a symptom severity survey from 474 workers conducted 2 weeks post-exposure. Workers were stratified by distance from the leak source (<10 m, 10–20 m, >20 m) and respirator use. Univariate general linear modeling was applied to analyze the relationship between symptom occurrence and both the distance from the exposure source and respirator use. Results: Among workers visiting hospitals immediately, local irritation symptoms predominated: sore throat (58.3%), cough (28.7%), and skin dermatoses (17.4%). Systemic symptoms included headache (45.2%), nausea (18.3%), chest tightness (12.2%), and dizziness (9.6%). Two-week follow-up revealed overall symptom improvement; severe cough decreased from 22.2% to 10.1%. However, despite general improvement, a significant portion of workers reported persistent respiratory issues, including cough (28.7%) and sputum production (31.0%). Symptom severity showed a significant dose-response relationship with proximity to the source (p < 0.001). While respirator use offered initial protection (p = 0.021), this effect was not statistically significant after 2 weeks. Conclusions Occupational LiOH exposure caused acute irritation and systemic symptoms, demonstrating immediate tissue damage consistent with its alkalinity and systemic toxicity upon absorption. As lithium battery production expands globally, these results emphasize the necessity for developing specific occupational exposure limits and medical surveillance guidelines for lithium compounds.

Objective: The prognostic value of coronary artery calcium (CAC) volume and density was derived from an automated artificial intelligence (AI)-based analysis of non-electrocardiogram-gated chest CT. Materials and Methods: In this retrospective study, 7,552 asymptomatic adults who underwent chest CT as part of a national health screening program between 2007 and 2014 at two tertiary hospitals were examined for eligibility, of whom 1,109 with detectable CAC were analyzed. CAC density was derived by back-calculation from the Agatston score and CAC volume, both of which were obtained using AI software on chest CT. Differences in the probability of being free from major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) across the four combined CAC volume-density groups were assessed using Kaplan–Meier curves and restricted mean survival time (RMST). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were used to assess the association between CAC volume and density and MACE. Results: Among the 1,109 participants with nonzero CAC (median age, 60.3 years; 87% men), 207 experienced MACE during a median follow-up of 7.7 years. Ten-year RMSTs were 9.45 years in the low-volume-high-density group, 9.07 years in the lowvolume-low-density group, 8.03 years in the high-volume-high-density group, and 7.68 years in the high-volume-low-density group. Differences in time to MACE were predominantly driven by CAC volume, with no significant density-related differences within the volume strata. CAC density demonstrated a significant, independent, inverse association after adjusting for CAC volume and clinical covariates (hazard ratio [HR] per increase by standard deviation [SD], 0.786; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.659–0.936; P = 0.007). CAC volume also remained independently associated with an increased risk of MACE (HR per increase by SD, 2.608; 95% CI, 2.016–3.374; P < 0.001). Conclusion CAC density derived from chest CT using automated AI quantification was independently and inversely associated with MACE, providing additional prognostic value when added to CAC volume.

Purpose: To develop the 2025 update to the Korean colorectal cancer (CRC) screening guidelines by systematically evaluating recent evidence, integrating domestic data, and addressing changes since the 2015 guideline revision, thereby providing an evidence-based standard for clinicians and policymakers. Methods: A multidisciplinary committee developed the guidelines using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. The process included formulation of three key questions addressing screening efficacy, diagnostic accuracy, and optimal screening age and interval. A systematic review of international guidelines and primary literature was conducted, yielding 327 eligible studies. In addition, a utility-based analysis using a Markov model was performed to determine optimal screening ages and intervals. Results: The evidence synthesis identified high-certainty evidence supporting the use of the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) for reducing CRC mortality and moderate-certainty evidence for colonoscopy. Evidence for computed tomographic colonography (CTC) and stool DNA testing was rated as very low certainty. Based on the evidence review and cost-utility analysis, the committee conditionally recommends CRC screening for asymptomatic, average-risk adults aged 45–74 years using either colonoscopy every 10 years or FIT every 1–2 years. CTC and stool DNA testing were not recommended owing to insufficient evidence. Conclusion The 2025 Korean Guidelines for Colorectal Cancer Screening present updated, evidence-based recommendations tailored to the domestic healthcare context. By conditionally endorsing both colonoscopy and FIT for individuals aged 45–74 years, these guidelines aim to improve population-level screening effectiveness and reduce the burden of CRC in South Korea.

and Relevance: This case supports the value of imaging, clinicopathologic assessment, and histopathology in diagnosis, and suggests that supportive husbandry modification may provide temporary welfare benefit in affected snakes.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Objective: As the demand for community mental health services continues to grow, the need for well-equipped and organized services has become apparent. This study aimed to optimize the roles and infrastructure of mental health services, by establishing, among other initiatives, standardized operating models. Methods: The study was conducted in multiple phases from May 12, 2021, to December 29, 2021. Stakeholders within South Korea and metropolitan mental health welfare centers were targeted, but addiction management support centers, including officials, patients, and their families, were integrated as well. A literature review and survey, focus group interviews, a Delphi survey, and expert consultation contributed to comprehensive revisions and improvements of the mental health service model. Results: The proposed model for community mental health welfare centers emphasizes the expansion of personnel and infrastructure, with a focus on severe mental illnesses and suicide prevention. The model for metropolitan mental health welfare centers delineates essential tasks in areas such as project planning and establishment, community research, and education about severe mental illnesses. The establishment of a 24-hour emergency intervention center was a crucial feature. In the integrated addiction support center model, the need to promote addiction management is defined as an essential task and the establishment of national governance for addiction policies is recommended. Conclusion This study proposed standard operating models for three types of mental health service centers. To meet the increasing need for community care, robust mental health service delivery systems are of primary importance.

Background: We evaluated severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2)-specific humoral and cellular responses for up to 6 months after the 3rd dose of ancestral coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccination in people living with HIV (PLWH) and healthy controls (HCs) who were not infected with COVID-19. Methods: Anti-spike receptor-binding domain IgG (anti-RBD IgG) concentrations using chemiluminescence immunoassay and neutralizing antibodies using focus reduction neutralization test (FRNT) were assessed at 1 week after each dose of vaccination, and 3 and 6 months after the 3rd dose in 62 PLWH and 25 HCs. T-cell responses using intracellular cytokine stain were evaluated at 1 week before, and 1 week and 6 months after the 3rd dose. Results: At 1 week after the 3rd dose, adequate anti-RBD IgG (> 300 binding antibody unit /mL) was elicited in all PLWH except for one patient with 36 CD4 T-cell count/mm3 . The geometric mean titers of 50% FRNT against wild type (WT) and omicron BA.5 strains of SARS-CoV-2 in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count ≥ 500 cells/mm3(high CD4 recovery, HCDR) were comparable to HC, but they were significantly decreased in PLWH with CD4 T-cell count < 500/mm3 (low CD4 recovery, LCDR). After adjusting for age, gender, viral suppression, and number of preexisting comorbidities, CD4 T-cell counts < 500/mm3 significantly predicted a poor magnitude of neutralizing antibodies against WT, omicron BA.5, and XBB 1.5 strains among PLWH. Multivariable linear regression adjusting for age and gender revealed that LCDR was associated with reduced neutralizing activity (P = 0.017) and interferon-γ-producing T-cell responses (P = 0.049 for CD T-cell; P = 0.014 for CD8 T-cell) against WT, and strongly associated with more decreased cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strains (P < 0.001). Conclusion HCDR demonstrated robust humoral and cell-mediated immune responses after a booster dose of ancestral SARS-CoV-2 vaccine, whereas LCDR showed diminished immune responses against WT virus and more impaired cross-neutralization against omicron BA.5 strain.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.