Objectives: . Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is a significant cause of hearing loss. Intratympanic steroid injection (ITSI) is commonly used as an initial or salvage treatment; however, the lack of a standardized treatment protocol has resulted in variability in clinical practice. In addition, no efficient prediction model currently exists to support personalized management. Therefore, this study aimed to develop tailored management strategies for ISSNHL using a machine-learning model. Methods: . This retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted between January 2015 and December 2020, with data analysis performed between January 2021 and March 2024. Patients were selected based on the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision criteria for ISSNHL, along with relevant medication and procedure codes. Patients with pure-tone audiogram results not meeting ISSNHL criteria, better initial hearing in the affected ear, an identifiable etiology, no post-treatment audiogram, or delayed treatment (>6 weeks) were excluded. We included 770 patients diagnosed with ISSNHL who received ITSI. The primary outcome was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for prediction performance. Recovery status was determined using the last pure-tone audiogram. Modeling was conducted on the Quanta for Medical Care AI platform using five machine-learning algorithms and a nested cross-validation framework, in which feature selection and hyperparameter tuning were performed in the inner folds and model performance was evaluated in the outer folds. Results: . A random forest classifier outperformed the other models in predicting hearing outcomes, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.788. Time to ITSI was the most influential treatment-related factor, with ITSI administered within 10 days of hearing loss being associated with better outcomes. This model can be used to provide personalized prognostic estimates under different treatment protocols. Conclusion . The machine-learning-based prediction model facilitates personalized treatment strategies and timely treatment adjustments for ISSNHL, thereby optimizing the likelihood of complete recovery.

Objective To investigate the effects of ischemia time and storage periods on RNA quality in fresh-frozen breast cancer(BC)and esophageal cancer(EC)tissue samples in order to establish evidence-based protocols for biobank sample management.Methods The tumor(T)and paired normal(N)tissue samples from 6 cases of BC and 6 cases of EC were collected and cryopreserved in Biobank,Shantou Central Hospital.Mirror paraffin-embedded tissues were simultaneously prepared into sections for morphological analysis.The samples were divided into two groups of<15 min and 15-30 min according to ischemia time,and RNA quality was analyzed at 4 storage periods of 8-10 months(T1),14-16 months(T2),26-28 months(T3)and 38-40 months(T4).Results In 96 analyzed samples,93.8%(90/96)exhibited high quality(RIN≥6),with 89.6%(43/48)in BC and 97.9%(47/48)in EC.Significant differences in RIN were observed between BC group and EC group(8.050 vs.8.600,P=0.009).In EC group,RIN value was significantly negatively correlated with RNA yield(P<0.001).Moreover,RIN values of tumor-normal pairs exhibited markedly significant differences(7.550 vs.9.000,P<0.001).In contrast,no significant difference was detected in BC group(8.200 vs.7.700,P=0.348).Statistical analysis showed that RIN value was positively correlated with 28S/18S(P<0.001),but had no correlation with tumor content(P=0.676)and necrotic content(P=0.055).Neither ischemia time(<15 min vs.15-30 min:8.200 vs.8.300,P=0.932)nor storage periods(T1-T4:8.400,7.700,8.450,8.600,P=0.163)compromised RNA quality.Conclusion Organ origin and tissue type could influence RNA quality of fresh-frozen tissue samples.However,limited ischemia time(≤30 min)and long-term storage period(38-40 months)do not adversely affect RNA quality in fresh-frozen breast cancer and esophageal cancer tissue samples.

Objective To investigate the effects of ischemia time and storage periods on RNA quality in fresh-frozen breast cancer(BC)and esophageal cancer(EC)tissue samples in order to establish evidence-based protocols for biobank sample management.Methods The tumor(T)and paired normal(N)tissue samples from 6 cases of BC and 6 cases of EC were collected and cryopreserved in Biobank,Shantou Central Hospital.Mirror paraffin-embedded tissues were simultaneously prepared into sections for morphological analysis.The samples were divided into two groups of<15 min and 15-30 min according to ischemia time,and RNA quality was analyzed at 4 storage periods of 8-10 months(T1),14-16 months(T2),26-28 months(T3)and 38-40 months(T4).Results In 96 analyzed samples,93.8%(90/96)exhibited high quality(RIN≥6),with 89.6%(43/48)in BC and 97.9%(47/48)in EC.Significant differences in RIN were observed between BC group and EC group(8.050 vs.8.600,P=0.009).In EC group,RIN value was significantly negatively correlated with RNA yield(P<0.001).Moreover,RIN values of tumor-normal pairs exhibited markedly significant differences(7.550 vs.9.000,P<0.001).In contrast,no significant difference was detected in BC group(8.200 vs.7.700,P=0.348).Statistical analysis showed that RIN value was positively correlated with 28S/18S(P<0.001),but had no correlation with tumor content(P=0.676)and necrotic content(P=0.055).Neither ischemia time(<15 min vs.15-30 min:8.200 vs.8.300,P=0.932)nor storage periods(T1-T4:8.400,7.700,8.450,8.600,P=0.163)compromised RNA quality.Conclusion Organ origin and tissue type could influence RNA quality of fresh-frozen tissue samples.However,limited ischemia time(≤30 min)and long-term storage period(38-40 months)do not adversely affect RNA quality in fresh-frozen breast cancer and esophageal cancer tissue samples.

With the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence(GAI)technologies,their widespread application in academic research and writing is continuously expanding the boundaries of sci-entific inquiry.However,this trend has also raised a series of ethical and regulatory challenges,inclu-ding issues related to authorship,content authenticity,citation accuracy,and accountability.In light of the growing involvement of AI in generating academic content,establishing an open,controllable,and trustworthy ethical governance framework has become a key task for safeguarding research integrity and maintaining trust within the academic community.This expert consensus outlines ethical requirements across key stages of AI-assisted academic writing-including topic selection,data management,citation practices,and authorship attribution.It aims to clarify the boundaries and ethical obligations surrounding AI use in academic writing,ensuring that technological tools enhance efficiency without compromising in-tegrity.The goal is to provide guidance and institutional support for building a responsible and sustainable research ecosystem.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

With the rapid development of generative artificial intelligence(GAI)technologies,their widespread application in academic research and writing is continuously expanding the boundaries of sci-entific inquiry.However,this trend has also raised a series of ethical and regulatory challenges,inclu-ding issues related to authorship,content authenticity,citation accuracy,and accountability.In light of the growing involvement of AI in generating academic content,establishing an open,controllable,and trustworthy ethical governance framework has become a key task for safeguarding research integrity and maintaining trust within the academic community.This expert consensus outlines ethical requirements across key stages of AI-assisted academic writing-including topic selection,data management,citation practices,and authorship attribution.It aims to clarify the boundaries and ethical obligations surrounding AI use in academic writing,ensuring that technological tools enhance efficiency without compromising in-tegrity.The goal is to provide guidance and institutional support for building a responsible and sustainable research ecosystem.