Background: The Ascertain Dementia 8-item Questionnaire (AD8) is a validated informant-based interview for early dementia detection. Research suggests the utility of self-rated AD8 to identify milder dementia forms in research settings. This study compares the factor structure, reliability, and diagnostic performance between AD8-Self and AD8-Informant for early cognitive impairment (ECI) in a clinical setting. Methods: Five hundreds fifteen patient-informant dyads (43 cognitively intact and 472 ECI) from a tertiary memory clinic completed both self-reported and informant AD8. We conducted exploratory factor analysis to determine the factor structure, Cronbach’s alpha for internal consistency, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis for ECI, including a subgroup analysis for mild cognitive impairment (MCI). Results: The mean age and education of ECI participants were 75.61 years (range, 51–95) and 5.6 years (range, 0–20), respectively, and 72.6 years (range, 51–89) and 6.8 years (range, 0–16) in the MCI subgroup. Unlike AD8-Informant’s one-factor structure, AD8-Self had a two-factor structure corresponding to memory and non-memory domains. AD8-Self demonstrated lower reliability (Cronbach’s alpha: ECI 0.666 vs. 0.764; MCI 0.663 vs. 0.709). In ECI, AD8-Informant (cutoff score ≥3) showed better diagnostic performance (sensitivity 89%, specificity 79%) than AD8-Self (cutoff score ≥4; sensitivity 27.1%, specificity 95.3%) (AUC 0.915 vs. 0.593; p<0.001). Similar results were found in MCI (sensitivity 64.7% vs. 26.5%; specificity 79.1% vs. 95.3%; AUC 0.745 vs. 0.600; p=0.002). Conclusion AD8-Self has a distinct factor structure, lower reliability, and inferior diagnostic performance compared to AD8-Informant for ECI/MCI detection. Our result do not support AD8-Self as a standalone tool for detecting ECI or MCI.

Introduction: The 2021 IDF-DAR risk calculator had been previously evaluated in multiple studies and subsequently widely accepted and applied in clinical practice as a practical standardized tool for patient risk stratification. Recently updated, the 2026 IDF-DAR Risk calculator enables a more individualized, evidence-related evaluation of patientrelated and disease-related risk factors, incorporating modern diabetes technologies, including continuous glucose monitoring (CGM), automated insulin delivery (AID) systems, and advanced insulin formulations to enhance risk stratification. This tool allows medical professionals to tailor Ramadan practices based on overall factors toward promoting safe fasting. Methodology: This prospective multicentre observational study recruited adults with Type 1 and Type 2 diabetes attending public hospitals nationwide. People with diabetes (PwD) intending to perform Ramadan fasting were invited to participate and assessed using the 2026 IDF-DAR Risk Calculator in the 6-week pre-Ramadan period between 30th January and 19th March 2026. Results: A total of 458 PwD were evaluated and stratified into low (15.7%), moderate (41%), and high risk (43.3%) categories. Most participants had Type 2 diabetes (83.6%), with 60.3% having a disease duration exceeding 10 years and 43% exhibiting poor glycemic control (hemoglobin A1c >9%). Insulin therapy was used by 76.4% of participants, including two individuals with Type 1 diabetes using AID systems. Most participants reported no recent hypoglycemia (76.4%), 81.0% performed glucose monitoring, and 3.3% used CGM. Severe comorbidities were uncommon, with 1.1% having unstable macrovascular disease and 4.4% advanced chronic kidney disease (estimated glomerular filtration rate <30). Notably, 72.2% received structured Ramadan education. Conclusion Majority of PwD attending tertiary diabetes clinics were in the moderate- to high-risk category and intended to fast despite medical advice against fasting in some cases. Although most participants were on insulin therapy, hypoglycemia was low in the pre-Ramadan period. Integration of modern technologies, advanced insulin therapies, and structured education may support safer fasting practices.
Risk Assessment ; Diabetes Mellitus ; Hospitals ; Fasting

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.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to understand the awareness and attitudes of elderly Southeast Asians towards telehealth services during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic in this study. METHODS: In this qualitative study, 78 individuals from Singapore (51.3% female, mean age 73.0 ± 7.6 years) were interviewed via telephone between 13 May 2020 and 9 June 2020 during Singapore's first COVID-19 'circuit breaker'. Participants were asked to describe their understanding of telehealth, their experience of and willingness to utilise these services, and the barriers and facilitators underlying their decision. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis, guided by the United Theory of Acceptance Use of Technology framework. RESULTS: Of the 78 participants, 24 (30.8%) were able to describe the range of telehealth services available and 15 (19.2%) had previously utilised these services. Conversely, 14 (17.9%) participants thought that telehealth comprised solely home medication delivery and 50 (51.3%) participants did not know about telehealth. Despite the advantages offered by telehealth services, participants preferred in-person consultations due to a perceived lack of human interaction and accuracy of diagnoses, poor digital literacy and a lack of access to telehealth-capable devices. CONCLUSION Our results showed poor overall awareness of the range of telehealth services available among elderly Asian individuals, with many harbouring erroneous views regarding their use. These data suggest that public health education campaigns are needed to improve awareness of and correct negative perceptions towards telehealth services in elderly Asians.
Humans ; COVID-19/epidemiology* ; Female ; Telemedicine ; Aged ; Male ; Singapore/epidemiology* ; Qualitative Research ; Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice ; SARS-CoV-2 ; Aged, 80 and over ; Middle Aged ; Pandemics ; Awareness ; Asian People ; Southeast Asian People

Background/Aims: Chronic hepatitis C (CHC) patients who failed antiviral therapy are at increased risk for hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This study assessed the potential role of metformin and statins, medications for diabetes mellitus (DM) and hyperlipidemia (HLP), in reducing HCC risk among these patients. Methods: We included CHC patients from the T-COACH study who failed antiviral therapy. We tracked the onset of HCC 1.5 years post-therapy by linking to Taiwan’s cancer registry data from 2003 to 2019. We accounted for death and liver transplantation as competing risks and employed Gray’s cumulative incidence and Cox subdistribution hazards models to analyze HCC development. Results: Out of 2,779 patients, 480 (17.3%) developed HCC post-therapy. DM patients not using metformin had a 51% increased risk of HCC compared to non-DM patients, while HLP patients on statins had a 50% reduced risk compared to those without HLP. The 5-year HCC incidence was significantly higher for metformin non-users (16.5%) versus non-DM patients (11.3%; adjusted sub-distribution hazard ratio [aSHR]=1.51; P=0.007) and metformin users (3.1%; aSHR=1.59; P=0.022). Statin use in HLP patients correlated with a lower HCC risk (3.8%) compared to non-HLP patients (12.5%; aSHR=0.50; P<0.001). Notably, the increased HCC risk associated with non-use of metformin was primarily seen in non-cirrhotic patients, whereas statins decreased HCC risk in both cirrhotic and non-cirrhotic patients. Conclusions Metformin and statins may have a chemopreventive effect against HCC in CHC patients who failed antiviral therapy. These results support the need for personalized preventive strategies in managing HCC risk.

Background/Aims: The performance of machine learning (ML) in predicting the outcomes of patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) remains uncertain. We aimed to develop risk scores using conventional methods and ML to categorize early-stage HCC patients into distinct prognostic groups. Methods: The study retrospectively enrolled 1,411 consecutive treatment-naïve patients with the Barcelona Clinic Liver Cancer (BCLC) stage 0 to A HCC from 2012 to 2021. The patients were randomly divided into a training cohort (n=988) and validation cohort (n=423). Two risk scores (CATS-IF and CATS-INF) were developed to predict overall survival (OS) in the training cohort using the conventional methods (Cox proportional hazards model) and ML-based methods (LASSO Cox regression), respectively. They were then validated and compared in the validation cohort. Results: In the training cohort, factors for the CATS-IF score were selected by the conventional method, including age, curative treatment, single large HCC, serum creatinine and alpha-fetoprotein levels, fibrosis-4 score, lymphocyte-tomonocyte ratio, and albumin-bilirubin grade. The CATS-INF score, determined by ML-based methods, included the above factors and two additional ones (aspartate aminotransferase and prognostic nutritional index). In the validation cohort, both CATS-IF score and CATS-INF score outperformed other modern prognostic scores in predicting OS, with the CATSINF score having the lowest Akaike information criterion value. A calibration plot exhibited good correlation between predicted and observed outcomes for both scores. Conclusions Both the conventional Cox-based CATS-IF score and ML-based CATS-INF score effectively stratified patients with early-stage HCC into distinct prognostic groups, with the CATS-INF score showing slightly superior performance.