Objectives: The Ministry of Education in South Korea conducts an annual Student Emotional and Behavioral Characteristics Test to facilitate early identification and intervention for mental health issues among adolescents. Students who exceed the screening cut-off undergo a secondary in-depth evaluation. In response to the increasing use of remote services following the coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, this study aimed to compare satisfaction and perceived reliability of face-to-face and remote formats of the secondary evaluation as reported by school personnel responsible for conducting the assessments. Methods: A total of 94 school personnel who oversaw the 2023 secondary evaluations in a metropolitan area participated in an anonymous online survey. The survey assessed their satisfaction with the evaluation period, perceived reliability of the evaluation process, and perceived reliability of the written reports. Subgroup analyses were conducted based on their experience with and preference for each evaluation format. Mann-Whitney U tests were used to compare differences between groups. Results: No significant differences were found between the face-to-face and remote groups in satisfaction with the evaluation period or the reliability of the written results. However, the face-to-face format was perceived as significantly more reliable in terms of the evaluation process itself. Among participants who had experience with both formats, the face-to-face format continued to receive higher reliability ratings, particularly among those who preferred face-to-face assessments. In contrast, those who preferred remote assessments showed no significant differences regardless of the format used. Conclusions Although some counselors express concern about the reliability of remote assessments, the findings suggest that remote formats can yield comparable results to face-to-face evaluations in terms of satisfaction and outcome reliability. While remote assessments may not fully replace in-person interactions, they can serve as a valid and efficient alternative, particularly for large-scale mental health screenings in school settings. Expanding the use of structured remote evaluations may enhance accessibility and responsiveness in school-based mental health services.

Non-human primates, due to their high genetic similarity to humans, are used as laboratory animals in biotechnology researches. The growing demand has recently led to a shortage of primate resources, which has become a significant issue both domestically and internation-ally. This shortage has been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the importance of resource conservation through effective primate management is increas-ing. This requires the establishment of proper quarantine procedures and infectious disease control. Quarantine is an important process that protects not only animal health but also pub-lic health significance. Non-human primate quarantine procedures were organized in order.We compared the differences in quarantine procedures not only in Korea but also in variouscountries such as the US, EU, and Australia. In addition, the etiology, clinical symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment methods of representative infectious diseases of quarantine concern(tuberculosis, monkeypox, monkey immunodeficiency virus, salmonellosis, and shigellosis) were summarized. A literature review of nonhuman primate quarantine procedures in other countries revealed minimal differences in the basic structure. The quarantine periods were similar around 30 days, but we found some differences in details such as legal requirements, documentation forms, and quarantine authorities. These findings are expected to contributeto the development of strategies for improving methods to prevent the spread of infectious diseases and enhancing quarantine management methods.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Non-human primates, due to their high genetic similarity to humans, are used as laboratory animals in biotechnology researches. The growing demand has recently led to a shortage of primate resources, which has become a significant issue both domestically and internation-ally. This shortage has been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the importance of resource conservation through effective primate management is increas-ing. This requires the establishment of proper quarantine procedures and infectious disease control. Quarantine is an important process that protects not only animal health but also pub-lic health significance. Non-human primate quarantine procedures were organized in order.We compared the differences in quarantine procedures not only in Korea but also in variouscountries such as the US, EU, and Australia. In addition, the etiology, clinical symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment methods of representative infectious diseases of quarantine concern(tuberculosis, monkeypox, monkey immunodeficiency virus, salmonellosis, and shigellosis) were summarized. A literature review of nonhuman primate quarantine procedures in other countries revealed minimal differences in the basic structure. The quarantine periods were similar around 30 days, but we found some differences in details such as legal requirements, documentation forms, and quarantine authorities. These findings are expected to contributeto the development of strategies for improving methods to prevent the spread of infectious diseases and enhancing quarantine management methods.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Since the role of the liver in metabolic dysfunction, including type 2 diabetes mellitus, was demonstrated, studies on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and metabolic dysfunction-associated fatty liver disease (MAFLD) have shown associations between fatty liver disease and other metabolic diseases. Unlike the exclusionary diagnostic criteria of NAFLD, MAFLD diagnosis is based on the presence of metabolic dysregulation in fatty liver disease. Renaming NAFLD as MAFLD also introduced simpler diagnostic criteria. In 2023, a new nomenclature, steatotic liver disease (SLD), was proposed. Similar to MAFLD, SLD diagnosis is based on the presence of hepatic steatosis with at least one cardiometabolic dysfunction. SLD is categorized into metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD), metabolic dysfunction and alcohol-related/-associated liver disease, alcoholrelated liver disease, specific etiology SLD, and cryptogenic SLD. The term MASLD has been adopted by a number of leading national and international societies due to its concise diagnostic criteria, exclusion of other concomitant liver diseases, and lack of stigmatizing terms. This article reviews the diagnostic criteria, clinical relevance, and differences among NAFLD, MAFLD, and MASLD from a diabetologist’s perspective and provides a rationale for adopting SLD/MASLD in the Fatty Liver Research Group of the Korean Diabetes Association.

Non-human primates, due to their high genetic similarity to humans, are used as laboratory animals in biotechnology researches. The growing demand has recently led to a shortage of primate resources, which has become a significant issue both domestically and internation-ally. This shortage has been further exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Consequently, the importance of resource conservation through effective primate management is increas-ing. This requires the establishment of proper quarantine procedures and infectious disease control. Quarantine is an important process that protects not only animal health but also pub-lic health significance. Non-human primate quarantine procedures were organized in order.We compared the differences in quarantine procedures not only in Korea but also in variouscountries such as the US, EU, and Australia. In addition, the etiology, clinical symptoms, diagnosis, and treatment methods of representative infectious diseases of quarantine concern(tuberculosis, monkeypox, monkey immunodeficiency virus, salmonellosis, and shigellosis) were summarized. A literature review of nonhuman primate quarantine procedures in other countries revealed minimal differences in the basic structure. The quarantine periods were similar around 30 days, but we found some differences in details such as legal requirements, documentation forms, and quarantine authorities. These findings are expected to contributeto the development of strategies for improving methods to prevent the spread of infectious diseases and enhancing quarantine management methods.

Background: It is well known that a large number of patients with diabetes also have dyslipidemia, which significantly increases the risk of cardiovascular disease (CVD). This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of combination drugs consisting of metformin and atorvastatin, widely used as therapeutic agents for diabetes and dyslipidemia. Methods: This randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group and phase III multicenter study included adults with glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA1c) levels >7.0% and <10.0%, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >100 and <250 mg/dL. One hundred eighty-five eligible subjects were randomized to the combination group (metformin+atorvastatin), metformin group (metformin+atorvastatin placebo), and atorvastatin group (atorvastatin+metformin placebo). The primary efficacy endpoints were the percent changes in HbA1c and LDL-C levels from baseline at the end of the treatment. Results: After 16 weeks of treatment compared to baseline, HbA1c showed a significant difference of 0.94% compared to the atorvastatin group in the combination group (0.35% vs. −0.58%, respectively; P<0.0001), whereas the proportion of patients with increased HbA1c was also 62% and 15%, respectively, showing a significant difference (P<0.001). The combination group also showed a significant decrease in LDL-C levels compared to the metformin group (−55.20% vs. −7.69%, P<0.001) without previously unknown adverse drug events. Conclusion The addition of atorvastatin to metformin improved HbA1c and LDL-C levels to a significant extent compared to metformin or atorvastatin alone in diabetes and dyslipidemia patients. This study also suggested metformin’s preventive effect on the glucose-elevating potential of atorvastatin in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus and dyslipidemia, insufficiently controlled with exercise and diet. Metformin and atorvastatin combination might be an effective treatment in reducing the CVD risk in patients with both diabetes and dyslipidemia because of its lowering effect on LDL-C and glucose.