Background: Rosacea is a chronic inflammatory skin disorder characterized by erythema, papules, ocular symptoms, and heightened sensitivity. Patients with neurogenic symptoms such as burning or stinging remain particularly difficult to manage. Current guidelines often underrepresent energy-based devices (EBDs), pigmentary sequelae, psychosocial burden, and ocular comorbidities. Objective: To examine Korean dermatologists’ expert perspectives on rosacea management, focusing on skin sensitivity, neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary changes, psychosocial impact, ocular involvement, and EBD use. Methods: A web-based, 29-item survey was administered to 25 board-certified Korean dermatologists (May–June 2025). Quantitative and qualitative responses were analyzed. Results: Erythematotelangiectatic and papulopustular phenotypes with sensitivity skin predominated. EBDs (pulsed dye laser, intense pulsed light) were frequently used but limited by cost and sensitivity issues. Neurogenic symptoms were recognized but rarely treated with neuromodulators. Post-inflammatory hyperpigmentation was infrequent, yet monitoring was inconsistent.Psychosocial and ocular aspects were acknowledged but seldomly systematically addressed.Respondents expressed interest in emerging adjunctive treatments such as cold plasma, skin boosters, and holistic care approaches. Conclusion Korean dermatologists adopt individualized strategies for rosacea, yet practice gaps remain regarding neurogenic symptoms, pigmentary complications, and psychosocial and ocular comorbidities. Findings support the need for updated multidisciplinary, phenotype-driven guidelines aligned with real-world practice.

Background: Excess intake of added sugars contributes to obesity, type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), cardiovascular disease (CVD), and premature mortality. Sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs), the main source of added sugars, are consistently linked to adverse outcomes. Artificially sweetened beverages (ASBs) have been suggested as short-term substitutes, but evidence regarding benefits and harms remains inconclusive, and guidance is lacking. Methods: This consensus statement draws on a structured evidence review combining two approaches: an updated meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) assessing short- to intermediate-term effects of replacing SSBs with ASBs on weight and metabolic outcomes; and an umbrella review of systematic reviews of cohort studies evaluating long-term associations of SSBs and ASBs with major outcomes, including mortality, CVD, and T2DM. Results: In 14 RCTs (3–76 weeks), replacing SSBs with ASBs produced modest reductions in body weight (–0.73 kg) and body fat (–0.72%), with inconsistent effects on glycemic and cardiometabolic markers. Evidence from 20 systematic reviews of cohorts (up to 34 years follow-up) showed that higher intake of both SSBs and ASBs was associated with increased risks of T2DM, CVD, and mortality, with relative risks for ASBs similar to those for SSBs. Conclusion ASBs may serve as a short-term substitution for individuals with high SSB intake, particularly those at elevated metabolic risk. However, regular or long-term use is not recommended due to uncertain safety and potential reinforcement of sweet preference. Public health strategies should emphasize reducing both SSBs and ASBs, prioritizing water and unsweetened beverages as the ultimate goal.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.

Objective: To test the performance of an artificial intelligence-based computer-aided diagnosis (AI-CAD) designed for fullfield digital mammography (FFDM) when applied to synthetic mammography (SM). Materials and Methods: We analyzed 501 women (mean age, 57 ± 11 years) who underwent preoperative mammography and breast cancer surgery. This cohort consisted of 1002 breasts, comprising 517 with cancer and 485 without. All patients underwent digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) and FFDM during the preoperative workup. The SM is routinely reconstructed using DBT. Commercial AI-CAD (Lunit Insight MMG, version 1.1.7.2) was retrospectively applied to SM and FFDM to calculate the abnormality scores for each breast. The median abnormality scores were compared for the 517 breasts with cancer using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. Calibration curves of abnormality scores were evaluated. The discrimination performance was analyzed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), sensitivity, and specificity using a 10% preset threshold. Sensitivity and specificity were further analyzed according to the mammographic and pathological characteristics.The results of SM and FFDM were compared. Results: AI-CAD demonstrated a significantly lower median abnormality score (71% vs. 96%, P < 0.001) and poorer calibration performance for SM than for FFDM. SM exhibited lower sensitivity (76.2% vs. 82.8%, P < 0.001), higher specificity (95.5% vs.91.8%, P < 0.001), and comparable AUC (0.86 vs. 0.87, P = 0.127) than FFDM. SM showed lower sensitivity than FFDM in asymptomatic breasts, dense breasts, ductal carcinoma in situ, T1, N0, and hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative cancers but showed higher specificity in non-cancerous dense breasts. Conclusion AI-CAD showed lower abnormality scores and reduced calibration performance for SM than for FFDM.Furthermore, the 10% preset threshold resulted in different discrimination performances for the SM. Given these limitations, off-label application of the current AI-CAD to SM should be avoided.