This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.

Background: s/Aims: In hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC), which exhibits high mortality and recurrence rates globally, the traits of cancer stem cells (CSCs) that significantly influence recurrence and metastasis are not well understood. CSCs are self-renewing cell types identified in most liquid and solid cancers, contributing to tumor initiation, growth, resistance, recurrence, and metastasis following chemo-radiotherapy or trans-arterial chemoembolization therapy. Methods: CSCs are classified based on the expression of cell surface markers such as CD133, which varies depending on the tumor type. Proteomic analysis of liver cancer cell lines with cancer stem cell potential and HCC cancer cell lines lacking stem cell propensity was conducted to compare and analyze specific expression patterns. Results: Proteomic profiling and enrichment analysis revealed higher expression of the calcium-binding protein S100 family in CD133+ Huh7 cells than in CD133- or wild-type cells. Furthermore, elevated expression of S100 family members was confirmed in an actual CD133+ liver cancer cell line via protein-protein network analysis and quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Conclusion The S100 family members are not only new markers of cancer stem cells but will also assist in identifying new treatment strategies for CSC metastasis and tumor advancement.

Background: and Purpose: This clinical practice guideline provides evidence-based recommendations for treatment of dementia, focusing on cholinesterase inhibitors and N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonists for Alzheimer’s disease (AD) and other types of dementia. Methods: Using the Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) framework, we developed key clinical questions and conducted systematic literature reviews. A multidisciplinary panel of experts, organized by the Korean Dementia Association, evaluated randomized controlled trials and observational studies. Recommendations were graded for evidence quality and strength using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Results: Three main recommendations are presented: (1) For AD, cholinesterase inhibitors (donepezil, rivastigmine, galantamine) are strongly recommended for improving cognition and daily function based on moderate evidence; (2) Cholinesterase inhibitors are conditionally recommended for vascular dementia and Parkinson’s disease dementia, with a strong recommendation for Lewy body dementia; (3) For moderate to severe AD, NMDA receptor antagonist (memantine) is strongly recommended, demonstrating significant cognitive and functional improvements. Both drug classes showed favorable safety profiles with manageable side effects. Conclusions This guideline offers standardized, evidence-based pharmacologic recommendations for dementia management, with specific guidance on cholinesterase inhibitors and NMDA receptor antagonists. It aims to support clinical decision-making and improve patient outcomes in dementia care. Further updates will address emerging treatments, including amyloid-targeting therapies, to reflect advances in dementia management.

OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to compare maternal outcomes and the home environment between non‑vulnerable families with children under 2 receiving universal home visiting services and vulnerable families receiving sustained home visiting services. METHODS: This study was conducted in Seoul, Korea, where the country’s first nurse‑led early childhood home visiting program was introduced. A total of 551 mother‑child dyads participated in cross‑sectional surveys conducted at various child ages (6±2 weeks, 6±1 months, 12±1 months, and 24±1 months). Universal home visiting services were provided within six weeks postpartum to non‑vulnerable families, while vulnerable families received sustained services consisting of 25 visits over 24 months. Maternal knowledge of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) and childcare, maternal distress, and the Korean Infant‑Toddler Home Observation for Measurement of Environment (K‑IT‑HOME) were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, the universal home visitation group demonstrated higher levels of maternal knowledge regarding SIDS and childcare compared to the sustained home visitation group (all p-values <0.05), while the sustained home visitation group reported higher levels of maternal distress (p<0.001). The total K‑IT‑HOME score was 1.47 points higher in the universal home visitation group than in the sustained home visitation group (p<0.001). No significant differences were observed in the acceptance, organization, or involvement subscales of the K‑IT‑HOME (all p-values >0.05). CONCLUSIONS This study demonstrated that disparities in maternal outcomes and home environments persisted in early childhood between the sustained and universal home visitation groups.

Purpose: This study aimed to develop a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI)–based radiomics model to predict high-risk pathologic features for lung adenocarcinoma: micropapillary and solid pattern (MPsol), spread through air space, and poorly differentiated patterns. Materials and Methods: As a prospective study, we screened clinical N0 lung cancer patients who were surgical candidates and had undergone both 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG) positron emission tomography–computed tomography (PET/CT) and chest CT from August 2018 to January 2020. We recruited patients meeting our proposed imaging criteria indicating high-risk, that is, poorer prognosis of lung adenocarcinoma, using CT and FDG PET/CT. If possible, these patients underwent an MRI examination from which we extracted 77 radiomics features from T1-contrast-enhanced and T2-weighted images. Additionally, patient demographics, maximum standardized uptake value on FDG PET/CT, and the mean apparent diffusion coefficient value on diffusion-weighted image, were considered together to build prediction models for high-risk pathologic features. Results: Among 616 patients, 72 patients met the imaging criteria for high-risk lung cancer and underwent lung MRI. The magnetic resonance (MR)–eligible group showed a higher prevalence of nodal upstaging (29.2% vs. 4.2%, p < 0.001), vascular invasion (6.5% vs. 2.1%, p=0.011), high-grade pathologic features (p < 0.001), worse 4-year disease-free survival (p < 0.001) compared with non-MR-eligible group. The prediction power for MR-based radiomics model predicting high-risk pathologic features was good, with mean area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) value measuring 0.751-0.886 in test sets. Adding clinical variables increased the predictive performance for MPsol and the poorly differentiated pattern using the 2021 grading system (AUC, 0.860 and 0.907, respectively). Conclusion Our imaging criteria can effectively screen high-risk lung cancer patients and predict high-risk pathologic features by our MR-based prediction model using radiomics.

Purpose: Patients with stage I colorectal cancer (CRC) rarely experience recurrence after curative resection. Therefore, the risk factors for stage I CRC recurrence are yet to be established. We aimed to identify risk factors for stage I CRC recurrence. Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Library were searched for articles published between 1990 and 2022. The pooled proportions and hazard ratios (HRs) were calculated. Fixed- or random-effect models were considered based on heterogeneity, using Cochran’s Q-statistic and the I2 -test. Results: Nine studies involving 19,440 patients were included. Nine analyzed risk factors were identified. T2 stage (pooled HR, 2.070; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.758–2.438; P < 0.001; I2 =0.0%), lymphovascular invasion (HR, 1.685; 95% CI, 1.420–1.999; P < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%), venous invasion (HR, 1.794; 95% CI, 1.515–2.125; P < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%), CEA level (HR, 1.472; 95% CI, 1.093–1.983; P = 0.011; I2 = 1.8%) and rectal cancer (HR, 2.981; 95% CI, 2.378–3.735; P < 0.001; I2 = 0.0%) were risk factors for the recurrence. However, the risk of recurrence in right-sided colon cancer was lower than in leftsided colon cancer. (HR, 0.712; 95% CI, 0.537–0.944; P = 0.018; I2 = 0.0%). No statistically significant differences were observed in the number of harvested lymph nodes, age, and sex. Conclusion T2 stage, lymphovascular invasion, venous invasion, CEA level, rectal cancer, and left-sided colon cancer were risk factors for recurrence in stage I CRC. Intensive monitoring and surveillance are warranted for patients with high-risk features of recurrence.

This study explores the development, roles, and key initiatives of the Regional Environmental Health Centers in Korea, detailing their evolution through four distinct phases and their impact on environmental health policy and local governance. It chronicles the establishment and transformation of these centers from their inception in May 2007, through four developmental stages. Originally named Environmental Disease Research Centers, they were subsequently renamed Environmental Health Centers following legislative changes. The analysis includes the expansion in the number of centers, the transfer of responsibilities to local governments, and the launch of significant projects such as the Korean Children’s Environmental Health Study (Ko-CHENS ). During the initial phase (May 2007–February 2009), the 10 centers concentrated on research-driven activities, shifting from a media-centered to a receptor-centered approach. In the second phase, prompted by the enactment of the Environmental Health Act, six additional centers were established, broadening their scope to address national environmental health issues. The third phase introduced Ko-CHENS, a 20-year national cohort project designed to influence environmental health policy by integrating research findings into policy frameworks. The fourth phase marked a decentralization of authority, empowering local governments and redefining the centers' roles to focus on regional environmental health challenges. The Regional Environmental Health Centers have significantly evolved and now play a crucial role in addressing local environmental health issues and supporting local government policies. Their capacity to adapt and respond to region-specific challenges is essential for the effective implementation of environmental health policies, reflecting geographical, socioeconomic, and demographic differences.