BACKGROUND:Studies have shown that rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis are positively correlated,but the causal relationship and related mechanisms have not yet been confirmed.With the cross-fertilization of computer science and life sciences,Mendelian randomization and bioinformatics analyses based on genome-wide association study(GWAS)and transcriptome sequencing data can assess the causal relationship between two diseases,explore the related mechanisms,and mine the therapeutic targets,which will be beneficial to the precision treatment of rheumatoid arthritis combined with osteoporosis.OBJECTIVE:To explore the causal relationship between rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis using two-sample Mendelian randomization and to mine potential co-morbid targets and potential targeted drugs through summary-data-based Mendelian randomization and bioinformatics analyses,aiming to provide theoretical basis for mechanism exploration and precision treatment in the field of rheumatoid arthritis combined with osteoporosis.METHODS:(1)Firstly,GWAS data of rheumatoid arthritis,osteoporosis,and cis-expression quantitative trait locus(cis-eQTL)in Asian and European populations were downloaded from the GWAS Catalog,IEU Open GWAS,FinnGen,and eQTLGen databases,and were used for two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis and summary-data-based Mendelian randomization analysis.(2)Transcriptome sequencing data of rheumatoid arthritis(GSE93272 and GSE15573)were downloaded from the GEO database for bioinformatics analysis.(3)Subsequently,forward and inverse Mendelian randomization analyses between rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis were performed,and inverse variance weighted was used as the main metric for the analyses,and the results were corroborated with MR Egger,simple mode,weighted median and weighted mode.(4)Then,the genes closely related to rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis were identified based on the summary-data-based Mendelian randomization analysis,and the co-disease targets of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis were mined based on cross-analysis.Meanwhile,the biological functions of the co-morbid targets were verified based on bioinformatics analysis and cellular experiments.(5)In addition,a rheumatoid arthritis risk prediction nomogram was constructed based on DYRK2,and its prediction performance was verified by receiver operating characteristic curve,correction curve and decision curve.Finally,the target potential drugs were mined based on Enrichr database and molecular docking was performed.RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:(1)Forward Mendelian randomization analysis of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis showed statistically significant results except for GCST90044540 and GCST90086118,and all other results indicated a significant causal relationship and positive correlation between rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis.(2)Inverse Mendelian randomization analysis suggested that no significant causal relationship was seen between osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis.(3)Summary-data-based Mendelian randomization analysis identified a total of 412 and 344 genes positively associated with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis,and 421 and 347 genes negatively associated.Based on the cross-analysis,26 co-morbid genes were subsequently obtained.Among them,DYRK2 was a potential therapeutic target,and subsequent bioinformatics analysis and cellular experiments confirmed its important role in the progression of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis.(4)Furthermore,the constructed nomogram has excellent predictive performance.Finally,four potential DYRK2-targeting drugs(undecanoic acid,metyrapone,JNJ-38877605,and ACA)were discovered and molecular docking also demonstrated reliable targeting ability.(5)In conclusion,based on GWAS data from Asian and European populations,we successfully demonstrated that rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis are causally related at the genetic level,DYRK2 is a potential therapeutic target,and four small molecules are potential target drugs.

BACKGROUND:Studies have shown that rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis are positively correlated,but the causal relationship and related mechanisms have not yet been confirmed.With the cross-fertilization of computer science and life sciences,Mendelian randomization and bioinformatics analyses based on genome-wide association study(GWAS)and transcriptome sequencing data can assess the causal relationship between two diseases,explore the related mechanisms,and mine the therapeutic targets,which will be beneficial to the precision treatment of rheumatoid arthritis combined with osteoporosis.OBJECTIVE:To explore the causal relationship between rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis using two-sample Mendelian randomization and to mine potential co-morbid targets and potential targeted drugs through summary-data-based Mendelian randomization and bioinformatics analyses,aiming to provide theoretical basis for mechanism exploration and precision treatment in the field of rheumatoid arthritis combined with osteoporosis.METHODS:(1)Firstly,GWAS data of rheumatoid arthritis,osteoporosis,and cis-expression quantitative trait locus(cis-eQTL)in Asian and European populations were downloaded from the GWAS Catalog,IEU Open GWAS,FinnGen,and eQTLGen databases,and were used for two-sample Mendelian randomization analysis and summary-data-based Mendelian randomization analysis.(2)Transcriptome sequencing data of rheumatoid arthritis(GSE93272 and GSE15573)were downloaded from the GEO database for bioinformatics analysis.(3)Subsequently,forward and inverse Mendelian randomization analyses between rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis were performed,and inverse variance weighted was used as the main metric for the analyses,and the results were corroborated with MR Egger,simple mode,weighted median and weighted mode.(4)Then,the genes closely related to rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis were identified based on the summary-data-based Mendelian randomization analysis,and the co-disease targets of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis were mined based on cross-analysis.Meanwhile,the biological functions of the co-morbid targets were verified based on bioinformatics analysis and cellular experiments.(5)In addition,a rheumatoid arthritis risk prediction nomogram was constructed based on DYRK2,and its prediction performance was verified by receiver operating characteristic curve,correction curve and decision curve.Finally,the target potential drugs were mined based on Enrichr database and molecular docking was performed.RESULTS AND CONCLUSION:(1)Forward Mendelian randomization analysis of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis showed statistically significant results except for GCST90044540 and GCST90086118,and all other results indicated a significant causal relationship and positive correlation between rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis.(2)Inverse Mendelian randomization analysis suggested that no significant causal relationship was seen between osteoporosis and rheumatoid arthritis.(3)Summary-data-based Mendelian randomization analysis identified a total of 412 and 344 genes positively associated with rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis,and 421 and 347 genes negatively associated.Based on the cross-analysis,26 co-morbid genes were subsequently obtained.Among them,DYRK2 was a potential therapeutic target,and subsequent bioinformatics analysis and cellular experiments confirmed its important role in the progression of rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis.(4)Furthermore,the constructed nomogram has excellent predictive performance.Finally,four potential DYRK2-targeting drugs(undecanoic acid,metyrapone,JNJ-38877605,and ACA)were discovered and molecular docking also demonstrated reliable targeting ability.(5)In conclusion,based on GWAS data from Asian and European populations,we successfully demonstrated that rheumatoid arthritis and osteoporosis are causally related at the genetic level,DYRK2 is a potential therapeutic target,and four small molecules are potential target drugs.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background: Tinnitus is a bothersome condition associated with various mechanisms of action. Although treatment methods vary according to these mechanisms, standardized guidelines would benefit both patients and clinicians. We conducted a Delphi study, a method that collects expert opinions through multiple rounds of questionnaires, to reach a consensus on tinnitus treatment with professional experts. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted to develop a clinical consensus on tinnitus treatment. The experts scored each statement on a scale of 1 (highest disagreement) to 9 (highest agreement) for their level of agreement on tinnitus treatment.Consensus was defined when 75% or more of the participants scored 7–9, and 15% or less scored 1–3. To ensure reliability of the responses, the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance were evaluated. Results: Approximately 19 of 31 statements reached a consensus. All 3 statements reached a consensus regarding the candidates for treatment. Regarding treatment, 3 of 8 statements on medication, 2 of 2 statements on tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and 5 of 7 statements on auditory rehabilitation reached a positive consensus. Although all 6 statements regarding miscellaneous treatment reached a consensus, most were negatively agreed. For treatment with neuromodulation, none of the 5 statements reached a consensus. Conclusion The experts reached a high level of consensus on treatment candidates, tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and auditory rehabilitation in this modified Delphi study. The results of this study can provide beneficial and practical information for clinicians regarding the treatment of tinnitus.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background: Tinnitus is a bothersome condition associated with various mechanisms of action. Although treatment methods vary according to these mechanisms, standardized guidelines would benefit both patients and clinicians. We conducted a Delphi study, a method that collects expert opinions through multiple rounds of questionnaires, to reach a consensus on tinnitus treatment with professional experts. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted to develop a clinical consensus on tinnitus treatment. The experts scored each statement on a scale of 1 (highest disagreement) to 9 (highest agreement) for their level of agreement on tinnitus treatment.Consensus was defined when 75% or more of the participants scored 7–9, and 15% or less scored 1–3. To ensure reliability of the responses, the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance were evaluated. Results: Approximately 19 of 31 statements reached a consensus. All 3 statements reached a consensus regarding the candidates for treatment. Regarding treatment, 3 of 8 statements on medication, 2 of 2 statements on tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and 5 of 7 statements on auditory rehabilitation reached a positive consensus. Although all 6 statements regarding miscellaneous treatment reached a consensus, most were negatively agreed. For treatment with neuromodulation, none of the 5 statements reached a consensus. Conclusion The experts reached a high level of consensus on treatment candidates, tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and auditory rehabilitation in this modified Delphi study. The results of this study can provide beneficial and practical information for clinicians regarding the treatment of tinnitus.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background: Tinnitus is a bothersome condition associated with various mechanisms of action. Although treatment methods vary according to these mechanisms, standardized guidelines would benefit both patients and clinicians. We conducted a Delphi study, a method that collects expert opinions through multiple rounds of questionnaires, to reach a consensus on tinnitus treatment with professional experts. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted to develop a clinical consensus on tinnitus treatment. The experts scored each statement on a scale of 1 (highest disagreement) to 9 (highest agreement) for their level of agreement on tinnitus treatment.Consensus was defined when 75% or more of the participants scored 7–9, and 15% or less scored 1–3. To ensure reliability of the responses, the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance were evaluated. Results: Approximately 19 of 31 statements reached a consensus. All 3 statements reached a consensus regarding the candidates for treatment. Regarding treatment, 3 of 8 statements on medication, 2 of 2 statements on tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and 5 of 7 statements on auditory rehabilitation reached a positive consensus. Although all 6 statements regarding miscellaneous treatment reached a consensus, most were negatively agreed. For treatment with neuromodulation, none of the 5 statements reached a consensus. Conclusion The experts reached a high level of consensus on treatment candidates, tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and auditory rehabilitation in this modified Delphi study. The results of this study can provide beneficial and practical information for clinicians regarding the treatment of tinnitus.

Background: Tinnitus is a multifactorial condition with no universally accepted assessment guidelines. The Korean Tinnitus Study Group previously established consensus statements on the definition, classification, and diagnostic tests for tinnitus. As a continuation of this effort, this study aims to establish expert consensus on tinnitus assessment and treatment outcome evaluation, specifically tailored to the Korean clinical context. Methods: A modified Delphi method involving 26 otology experts from across Korea was used. A two-round Delphi survey was conducted to evaluate statements related to tinnitus assessment before and after treatment. Statements were rated on a scale of 1 to 9 for the level of agreement. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% agreement (score of 7–9) and ≤ 15% disagreement (score of 1–3). Statistical measures such as content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance (W) were calculated to assess agreement levels. Results: Of the 46 assessment-related statements, 17 (37%) reached consensus, though overall pre-treatment assessments showed weak agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.319). Key areas of agreement included the use of the visual analogue scale, numeric rating scale, and validated questionnaires for pre-treatment evaluation. Five statements, such as the use of computed tomography, magnetic resonance imaging, and angiography for diagnosing pulsatile tinnitus, achieved over 90% agreement. For treatment outcome measurements, 8 of 12 statements (67%) reached a consensus, with moderate agreement (Kendall’s W = 0.513). Validated questionnaires and psychoacoustic tests were recommended for evaluating treatment effects within 12 weeks. While standardized imaging for pulsatile tinnitus and additional clinical tests were strongly recommended, full consensus was not achieved across all imaging modalities. Conclusion This study provides actionable recommendations for tinnitus assessment and treatment evaluation, emphasizing the use of standardized tools and individualized approaches based on patient needs. These findings offer a practical framework to enhance consistency and effectiveness in tinnitus management within Korean clinical settings.

Background: Tinnitus is a bothersome condition associated with various mechanisms of action. Although treatment methods vary according to these mechanisms, standardized guidelines would benefit both patients and clinicians. We conducted a Delphi study, a method that collects expert opinions through multiple rounds of questionnaires, to reach a consensus on tinnitus treatment with professional experts. Methods: A two-round modified Delphi survey was conducted to develop a clinical consensus on tinnitus treatment. The experts scored each statement on a scale of 1 (highest disagreement) to 9 (highest agreement) for their level of agreement on tinnitus treatment.Consensus was defined when 75% or more of the participants scored 7–9, and 15% or less scored 1–3. To ensure reliability of the responses, the content validity ratio and Kendall’s coefficient of concordance were evaluated. Results: Approximately 19 of 31 statements reached a consensus. All 3 statements reached a consensus regarding the candidates for treatment. Regarding treatment, 3 of 8 statements on medication, 2 of 2 statements on tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and 5 of 7 statements on auditory rehabilitation reached a positive consensus. Although all 6 statements regarding miscellaneous treatment reached a consensus, most were negatively agreed. For treatment with neuromodulation, none of the 5 statements reached a consensus. Conclusion The experts reached a high level of consensus on treatment candidates, tinnitus retraining therapy/cognitive behavioral therapy, and auditory rehabilitation in this modified Delphi study. The results of this study can provide beneficial and practical information for clinicians regarding the treatment of tinnitus.