INTRODUCTION: Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with significant long-term impacts, yet few interventions specifically target ACE exposure, especially in Asian populations. Anchor, Singapore's first home visitation programme, addresses maltreat-ment among preschool children. This study evaluated Anchor's impact on children's developmental and behavioural outcomes. METHOD: We conducted a prospective evaluation of children under 4 years assessed for maltreatment from November 2019 to July 2023. Developmental and behavioural progress was measured every 6 months using the Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ-3) and ASQ:Social-Emotional (ASQ:SE-2), and annually using the Child Behaviour Checklist (CBCL). RESULTS: The results of 125 children (mean age 20.0 months, 48% female) were analysed. The mean length of stay in programme was 21.2 (7.3) months. At baseline, 92 (73.6%) children were at risk of develop-mental delay and 25 (31.7%) children aged ≥18 months had behavioural concerns. The programme was associated with significant improvements in gross motor (P=0.002) and fine motor (P=0.001) domains of the ASQ-3 and internalising problem scale (P=0.001) of the CBCL. CONCLUSION Anchor effectively enhances develop-mental and behavioural outcomes for children exposed to maltreatment. Targeted early intervention through such programmes can mitigate adverse impacts, optimising developmental trajectories and potentially reducing the long-term clinical and economic burdens associated with ACEs.
Humans ; Female ; Male ; Child Abuse/therapy* ; Child, Preschool ; Singapore ; House Calls ; Infant ; Prospective Studies ; Child Development ; Developmental Disabilities/epidemiology* ; Program Evaluation ; Child Behavior Disorders ; Child Behavior

AIM To explore the mechanism of Dabugan Decoction's action on a rat model of generalized anxiety disorder(GAD).METHODS The rat models established by 21 days exposure to chronic unpredictable mild stress(CUMS)were then randomly divided into the model group,the paroxetine group(1.8 mg/kg)and the high-dose,medium-dose and low-dose Dabugan Decoction groups(13.2,6.6 and 3.3 g/kg),in contrast to the other normal rats assigned into the blank group,for the following 28 days administration of the corresponding drugs by gavage.After the intervention,the rats had their anxiety intensity analyzed by behavioral tests;their hippocampal pathological changes and Nissl's body differences observed by HE staining and Nissl staining;their cerebral ROS activity detected by immunofluorescence;their hippocampal activities of SOD and CAT,and levels of MDA and GSH detected by kit;and their hippocampal mRNA and protein expressions of Nrf2,Keap1,HO-1,NQO1,BDNF,5-HT1A,caspase-3 and GSH detected by RT-qPCR and Western blot.RESULTS Compared with the model group,the Dabugan Decoction groups displayed improved anxiety responses;increased movement distance at the open arm end and total distance as well,more entries and duration at the open box,more time and entries at the open field center in elevated plus maze(P＜0.05,P＜0.01);increased number of hippocampal neurons,ameliorated cell body damage,increased Nissl bodies in cells,decreased hippocampal ROS activity and MDA level(P＜0.05,P＜0.01);increased activities of SOD and CAT,and GSH level(P＜0.05,P＜0.01);increased hippocampal mRNA and protein expressions of Nrf2,HO-1,NQO1,BDNF and 5-HT1A(P＜0.05,P＜0.01),and decreased mRNA and protein expressions of p62,Keap1 and caspase-3(P＜0.05,P＜0.01).CONCLUSION Dabugan Decoction can effectively improve the anxiety of GAD rats,and its mechanism may be related to the recovery of oxidative stress-induced injury in hippocampal neurons via ROS/Nrf2/HO-1 signaling pathway.

Objective To establish a dynamic prediction model of fatal massive hemorrhage in trauma based on the vital signs time series data and machine learning algorithms.Methods Retrospectively analyze the vital signs time series data of 7522 patients with trauma in the Medical Information Mart for Intensive Care-Ⅳ(MIMIC-Ⅳ)database from 2008 to 2019.According to the occurrence of posttraumatic fatal massive hemorrhage,the patients were divided into two groups:fatal massive hemorrhage group(n=283)and non-fatal massive hemorrhage group(n=7239).Six machine learning algorithms,including logistic regression(LR),support vector machine(SVM),random forests(RF),adaptive boosting(AdaBoost),gated recurrent unit(GRU),and GRU-D were used to develop a dynamic prediction models of fatal massive hemorrhage in trauma.The probability of fatal massive hemorrhage in the following 1,2,and 3 h was dynamically predicted.The performance of the models was evaluated by accuracy,sensitivity,specificity,positive predictive value,negative predictive value,Youden index,and area under receiver operating characteristic curve(AUC).The models were externally validated based on the trauma database of the Chinese PLA General Hospital.Results In the MIMIC-Ⅳ database,the set of dynamic prediction models based on the GRU-D algorithm was the best.The AUC for predicting fatal major bleeding in the next 1,2,and 3 h were 0.946±0.029,0.940±0.032,and 0.943±0.034,respectively,and there was no significant difference(P=0.905).In the trauma dataset,GRU-D model achieved the best external validation effect.The AUC for predicting fatal major bleeding in the next 1,2,and 3 h were 0.779±0.013,0.780±0.008,and 0.778±0.009,respectively,and there was no significant difference(P=0.181).This set of models was deployed in a public web calculator and hospital emergency department information system,which is convenient for the public and medical staff to use and validate the model.Conclusion A set of dynamic prediction models has been successfully developed and validated,which is greatly significant for the early diagnosis and dynamic prediction of fatal massive hemorrhage in trauma.

Objective To evaluate the efficacy and safety of brexpiprazole in treating acute schizophrenia.Methods Patients with schizophrenia were randomly divided into treatment group and control group.The treatment group was given brexpiprozole 2-4 mg·d-1 orally and the control group was given aripiprazole 10-20 mg·d-1orally,both were treated for 6 weeks.Clinical efficacy of the two groups,the response rate at endpoint,the changes from baseline to endpoint of Positive and Negative Syndrome Scale(PANSS),Clinical Global Impression-Improvement(CGI-S),Personal and Social Performance scale(PSP),PANSS Positive syndrome subscale,PANSS negative syndrome subscale were compared.The incidence of treatment-related adverse events in two groups were compared.Results There were 184 patients in treatment group and 186 patients in control group.After treatment,the response rates of treatment group and control group were 79.50％(140 cases/184 cases)and 82.40％(150 cases/186 cases),the scores of CGI-I of treatment group and control group were(2.00±1.20)and(1.90±1.01),with no significant difference(all P＞0.05).From baseline to Week 6,the mean change of PANSS total score wese(-30.70±16.96)points in treatment group and(-32.20±17.00)points in control group,with no significant difference(P＞0.05).The changes of CGI-S scores in treatment group and control group were(-2.00±1.27)and(-1.90±1.22)points,PSP scores were(18.80±14.77)and(19.20±14.55)points,PANSS positive syndrome scores were(-10.30±5.93)and(-10.80±5.81)points,PANSS negative syndrome scores were(-6.80±5.98)and(-7.30±5.15)points,with no significant difference(P＞0.05).There was no significant difference in the incidence of treatment-related adverse events between the two group(69.00％vs.64.50％,P＞0.05).Conclusion The non-inferiority of Brexpiprazole to aripiprazole was established,with comparable efficacy and acceptability.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Purpose: In patients with acute left-sided colonic obstruction, stenting can convert an emergency operation into a semi-elective procedure. However, its use continues to be debated. We performed a cost-effective analysis using our institution’s experiences. Methods: Endoscopic, surgical, and financial details were prospectively collected for patients who presented with acute colonic obstruction and underwent stenting between 2019 and 2022. Outcomes were defined as technical/clinical success and successful surgical resection. The financial cost of stenting was compared with the expected cost without stenting. Results: Forty patients were included, with 29 undergoing definitive resection. The most common pathology was primary colon cancer (27 patients, 93%). Endoscopic stenting had high technical (90%) and clinical (83%) success rates, with low rates of complications such as perforation (2 patients, 7%) and migration (0 patients, 0%). As a bridge to surgery, the median procedure time was 226 minutes and the surgical outcomes also showed a low rate of complications (3 patients, 11%), such as anastomotic leakage (0 patients, 0%), intraabdominal abscesses (2 patients, 7%), and 30-day postoperative mortality (0 patients, 0%). The cumulative costs with colonic stenting were $32,900, while the expected costs with emergency surgery, including stoma reversal, were $40,700 (healthcare cost-savings of $7,800 per person). The difference was mainly due to the avoidance of upfront emergency surgery. The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio was 0.81, favoring colonic stenting over upfront emergency surgery. Conclusion Colonic stenting as a bridge to surgery is safe and cost-effective for treating left-sided colonic obstruction with high success rates and low complication rates.

Humans ; Fibrosarcoma/surgery* ; Sarcoma ; Temporal Bone ; Soft Tissue Neoplasms/surgery*