Background: A systematic evaluation of potential living liver donors is essential to ensure donor safety and optimize recipient outcomes in living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). This study aimed to assess donor acceptance rates and reasons for disqualification among individuals evaluated for LDLT at a high-volume transplant center over a one-year period. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed 1,087 potential living liver donors who presented for LDLT evaluation in 2023. Of these, 991 candidates advanced beyond the initial screening (Stage 1) and underwent comprehensive clinical, imaging, and pathological assessments (Stages 2 and 3). Candidates who discontinued after Stage 1 were excluded due to the absence of documented reasons for non-progression. Results: Among the 991 candidates who proceeded beyond initial screening, 473 (47.7%) completed the full donor evaluation, of whom 466 were judged to be suitable donors. Among suitable donors, 384 (82.4%) proceeded to donor hepatectomy, whereas 82 did not, primarily due to recipient-related factors such as clinical deterioration or withdrawal of consent. Donor ineligibility was determined in 422 candidates (42.6%), most commonly due to inadequate remnant liver volume (52.8%), hepatic steatosis (20.6%), and insufficient graft size (10.2%). Among candidates undergoing Stage 2 evaluation, 162 (16.3%) failed to meet steatosis criteria; 126 were excluded solely for steatosis and advised weight reduction, and 39 subsequently became eligible and successfully donated. Conclusion In this high-volume LDLT center, donor disqualification was primarily driven by remnant liver volume and hepatic steatosis. Targeted interventions such as weight reduction enabled successful donation in a subset of initially ineligible candidates, underscoring the importance of individualized donor evaluation and pre-donation optimization.

Purpose: Medical artificial intelligence (AI) is rapidly being integrated into clinical practice and healthcare systems, raising concerns regarding safety, accountability, and governance. Despite its increasing importance, empirical comparative studies examining differences in perceptions of medical AI among key expert groups remain limited. This study aimed to compare and analyze perceptions of medical AI among medical and non-medical professionals and to systematically identify commonalities and differences across policy- and governance-relevant domains. Methods: Focus group interviews using open-ended questions were conducted with 30 experts (15 medical and 15 non-medical professionals) who had direct experience with medical AI. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis combined with qualitative comparative analysis. Analytical rigor was strengthened through independent coding and consensus-based discussions. Results: Both groups recognized the potential of medical AI to bring meaningful changes to healthcare systems. However, medical professionals primarily evaluated medical AI in terms of clinical applicability, patient safety, explainability, and accountability. In contrast, non-medical professionals emphasized technological maturity, scalability, data infrastructure, standardization, and system-integration potential. Group-specific patterns also emerged regarding perceived limitations, autonomy, educational priorities, and classification frameworks, particularly in relation to clinical risk management versus system-level design and governance considerations. Conclusion: Differences in perceptions of medical AI are systematically associated with distinct interpretive frames shaped by professional roles and responsibility structures. Effective implementation and policy design for medical AI therefore require an integrated approach that accounts for these structural differences. This study provides empirical evidence and a conceptual foundation for future quantitative and mixed-methods research on medical AI governance.

Subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) is a stroke subtype with high mortality and poor functional outcomes. Prompt occlusion of a ruptured aneurysm at an early stage is crucial to prevent rebleeding, which can result in even higher mortality and more severe disabilities. The most critical initial decision in SAH management is the choice of treatment method with surgical clipping or endovascular coiling. We aimed to develop an evidence-based clinical guideline to select the optimal initial treatment in patients with SAH. We developed this guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted across four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and KoreaMed) to answer two population, intervention, comparison, outcome questions comparing clipping and coiling. The risk of bias was assessed using ROB 2.0 and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagrams and meta-analyses were generated for functional outcome and mortality. We included six randomized control trials (RCTs) and 58 observational studies. Meta-analysis of RCTs showed that coiling improved functional outcomes compared to clipping (odds ratio [OR], 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86–0.97). No significant mortality difference was observed in RCTs (OR, 1.38; 95% CI, 0.91–2.09), but non-RCTs favored clipping for reduced mortality (OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.69–0.86). However, it is difficult to generalize these findings to all clinical situations, as patients with SAH have a highly variable clinical course. Final treatment decision should be tailored to the individual patient’s status, including aneurysm location, morphology, and the expertise available at the treatment center. Such decisions are best made by specialists such as a board-certified physician and should be explained to the patient and their caregivers, along with the rationale for selecting the most appropriate treatment at the given hospital. Korea has many certified endovascular neurosurgeons, cerebrovascular surgeons, and certified cerebrovascular centers. Proper selection of the most suitable treatment method by certified physicians and centers would greatly benefit patient outcomes and healthcare professionals.

Accurate and early identification of stroke and large vessel occlusion (LVO) in emergency settings is essential for improving patient outcomes and ensuring the efficient allocation of medical resources. This clinical practice guideline systematically reviews domestic and international literature and conducts meta-analyses to evaluate the utility and diagnostic accuracy of stroke assessment tools used in prehospital emergency medical services (EMS). We developed a guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted to evaluate the usefulness of diagnostic EMS assessment tools for diagnosing stroke and LVO. Overall, 70 non-randomized control studies were selected for this study. A meta-analysis was conducted with a subgroup analysis to distinguish between patients with stroke and those with LVO. EMS tools demonstrated high sensitivity but low specificity for diagnosing stroke. In the prehospital setting, using validated EMS stroke assessment tools is recommended for the early identification of stroke and LVO. Upon hospital arrival, stroke specialists should conduct further evaluation and triage to confirm the diagnosis and guide appropriate management. Delays in diagnosing LVO are frequently unacceptable. While experts advocate for the use of EMS assessment tools to facilitate early identification of LVO, these tools alone lack adequate sensitivity. Therefore, further diagnostic evaluations and consultation with stroke specialists upon hospital arrival are recommended.

The mothership (MS) model, where patients are directly transferred to a thrombectomy-capable center, and the drip-and-ship (DS) model, where thrombolysis is initiated at the nearest primary stroke center before transfer for thrombectomy, are the primary transport modes for patients with stroke. We aimed to establish guidelines for selecting the appropriate transfer strategy based on emergent large vessel occlusion (LVO). We developed this guideline based on evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses via a de novo process. A systematic literature review was conducted across four databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane, and KoreaMed) to answer three Population, Intervention, Comparison, and Outcome questions comparing MS and DS models. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses flow diagrams and meta-analyses were generated for functional outcomes, mortality, and successful recanalization. Twenty-six non-randomized controlled studies showed that the MS model improved good functional outcomes by approximately 14% compared with the DS model (odds ratio [OR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.00–1.30). Fifteen studies reported that mortality in the MS and DS models showed no significant differences (OR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84–1.11). Twenty-four studies revealed no significant difference in successful recanalization between the MS and DS models (OR, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.68–1.10). The MS model should be considered first to improve the functional outcome of patients with LVO. However, if thrombectomy cannot be performed immediately after thrombolysis, or if a thrombectomy-enabled hospital is not nearby, the DS model should be considered by stroke specialists depending on transportation time and regional factors. We suggest a mixed approach with the DS model based on specific circumstances or regions to ensure the optimum treatment of patients with acute ischemic stroke (AIS). Appropriate transport for patients with LVO improves the prognosis of AIS.

Connective tissue disease (CTD), comprising a range of autoimmune disorders, is often accompanied by lung involvement, which can lead to life-threatening complications. The primary types of CTDs that manifest as interstitial lung disease (ILD) include rheumatoid arthritis, systemic sclerosis, Sjögren’s syndrome, mixed CTD, idiopathic inflammatory myopathies, and systemic lupus erythematosus. CTD-ILD presents a significant challenge in clinical diagnosis and management due to its heterogeneous nature and variable prognosis. Early diagnosis through clinical, serological, and radiographic assessments is crucial for distinguishing CTD-ILD from idiopathic forms and for implementing appropriate therapeutic strategies. Hence, we have reviewed the multiple clinical manifestations and diagnostic approaches for each type of CTD-ILD, acknowledging the diversity and complexity of the disease. The importance of a multidisciplinary approach in optimizing the management of CTD-ILD is emphasized by recent therapeutic advancements, which include immunosuppressive agents, antifibrotic therapies, and newer biological agents targeting specific pathways involved in the pathogenesis. Therapeutic strategies should be customized according to the type of CTD, the extent of lung involvement, and the presence of extrapulmonary manifestations. Additionally, we aimed to provide clinical guidance, including therapeutic recommendations, for the effective management of CTD-ILD, based on patient, intervention, comparison, outcome (PICO) analysis.

Background: and Purpose We aimed to determine the proportion of Korean patients with early Alzheimer’s disease (AD) who are eligible to receive lecanemab based on the United States Appropriate Use Recommendations (US AUR), and also identify the barriers to this treatment. Methods: We retrospectively enrolled 6,132 patients with amnestic mild cognitive impairment or mild amnestic dementia at 13 hospitals from June 2023 to May 2024. Among them, 2,058 patients underwent amyloid positron emission tomography (PET) and 1,199 (58.3%) of these patients were amyloid-positive on PET. We excluded 732 patients who did not undergo brain magnetic resonance imaging between June 2023 and May 2024. Finally, 467 patients were included in the present study. Results: When applying the criteria of the US AUR, approximately 50% of patients with early AD were eligible to receive lecanemab treatment. Among the 467 included patients, 36.8% did not meet the inclusion criterion of a Mini-Mental State Examination (MMSE) score of ≥22. Conclusions Eligibility for lecanemab treatment was not restricted to Korean patients with early AD except for those with an MMSE score of ≥22. The MMSE criteria should therefore be reconsidered in areas with a higher proportion of older people, who tend to have lower levels of education.