Objectives: . Idiopathic sudden sensorineural hearing loss (ISSNHL) is a significant cause of hearing loss. Intratympanic steroid injection (ITSI) is commonly used as an initial or salvage treatment; however, the lack of a standardized treatment protocol has resulted in variability in clinical practice. In addition, no efficient prediction model currently exists to support personalized management. Therefore, this study aimed to develop tailored management strategies for ISSNHL using a machine-learning model. Methods: . This retrospective multicenter cohort study was conducted between January 2015 and December 2020, with data analysis performed between January 2021 and March 2024. Patients were selected based on the International Classification of Diseases, 10th Revision criteria for ISSNHL, along with relevant medication and procedure codes. Patients with pure-tone audiogram results not meeting ISSNHL criteria, better initial hearing in the affected ear, an identifiable etiology, no post-treatment audiogram, or delayed treatment (>6 weeks) were excluded. We included 770 patients diagnosed with ISSNHL who received ITSI. The primary outcome was the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for prediction performance. Recovery status was determined using the last pure-tone audiogram. Modeling was conducted on the Quanta for Medical Care AI platform using five machine-learning algorithms and a nested cross-validation framework, in which feature selection and hyperparameter tuning were performed in the inner folds and model performance was evaluated in the outer folds. Results: . A random forest classifier outperformed the other models in predicting hearing outcomes, achieving an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of 0.788. Time to ITSI was the most influential treatment-related factor, with ITSI administered within 10 days of hearing loss being associated with better outcomes. This model can be used to provide personalized prognostic estimates under different treatment protocols. Conclusion . The machine-learning-based prediction model facilitates personalized treatment strategies and timely treatment adjustments for ISSNHL, thereby optimizing the likelihood of complete recovery.

Processed electroencephalogram (EEG) indices, such as the Bispectral Index, have markedly influenced anesthesia practice as they translate brain activity into simple numerical indices. Nevertheless, as the manufacturing algorithms are not disclosed, the underlying neurophysiology remains obscured. Additionally, these indices are often affected by electromyographic contamination, pharmacological variability, and patient-specific EEG heterogeneity. In contrast, an EEG spectrogram, or density spectral array, preserves the frequency- and time-resolved structures of cortical oscillations. This information is presented in a form that is both physiologically meaningful and clinically interpretable. In this review, we trace the evolution of anesthesia from an index-based to a spectrogram-guided approach, and summarize the clinical rationale for adopting the latter. Key applications of this approach include the use of frontal alpha power as a biomarker of cortical stability and postoperative brain health, the identification of nociceptive arousal through alpha dropout and beta or delta arousal patterns, and individualized titration of multimodal or age-specific anesthetic management. Although current devices lack standardized quantitative alpha metrics and have limited sensitivity for low-frequency brain wave components, structured EEG education programs have proven to be effective in terms of fostering spectrogram literacy among anesthesiologists. By combining neurophysiological precision with bedside practicality, the EEG spectrogram represents a pivotal advance toward individualized, mechanism-based, and brain-protective anesthesia, transforming anesthetic monitoring from mere algorithmic abstraction to cortical insight.

Background/Aims: Data from Asia regarding the short-term and long-term outcomes for acute severe ulcerative colitis (ASUC) are limited. We assessed the outcomes of ASUC, identified the risk factors for colectomy, and compared colectomy rates between the pre-biologics and post-biologics eras in Taiwan. Methods: The patients with an ASUC diagnosis between January 2013 and March 2022 at 5 tertiary medical centers were retrospectively analyzed. Results: In total, 98 patients were enrolled, with 68.4% diagnosed in the post-biologics era. In 78.6% of the ASUC patients initially received intravenous steroid therapy, for which the success rate was 74.1%. As for rescue therapy, 15 patients (93.8%) received biologics and 1 (6.3%) received cyclosporin. Biologics rescue therapy had a 93.3% success rate. One (1%) mortality due to septic shock occurred. The colectomy rate for index ASUC admission was 11.2%. Patients receiving colectomy were predominantly male (P= 0.012) and at older age (P= 0.016). Higher C-reactive protein (P= 0.035), lower albumin (P= 0.017), and hemoglobin (P= 0.023) levels were associated with colectomy risk. During a median follow-up of 24 months, 13 patients (15.1%) had recurrent ASUC and 23.1% of patients received colectomy. The accumulated colectomy rate at 3 years did not differ between the pre- and post-biologics eras (16.1% vs. 13.4%, P= 0.270). Conclusions This is the first Asian study on ASUC to compare colectomy rates between the prebiologics and post-biologics eras, revealing no significant difference. The recurrent ASUC had a higher colectomy rate than the index ASUC.

Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic disrupted healthcare and worsened quality of life (QOL). Advanced esophageal cancer is often accompanied by malnutrition and poor QOL; chemoradiotherapy (CRT) remains the mainstay of treatment.We evaluated nutrition and QOL pre- and post-CRT immediately before and during the pandemic. Methods: Patients with esophageal cancer who underwent neoadjuvant or definitive CRT between April 2019 and December 2020 were enrolled. Disease severity, treatment timing, and outcomes were compared for cohorts treated pre-COVID-19 and during COVID-19. Nutritional status was measured with the Patient-Generated Subjective Global Assessment (PG-SGA). QOL was measured with the Mandarin Chinese version of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer core questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30) and the esophageal site-specific module (QLQ-OES18). In the pandemic cohort, pre-/post-CRT paired analyses were performed. Results: Eighty-four patients were enrolled. The median diagnosis to treatment interval lengthened during COVID-19 (17.8 days vs. 24.2 days, p=0.04). Among the patients treated during the COVID-19 pandemic, nutritional status improved significantly following CRT (p=0.003). In the EORTC QLQ-C30, post-CRT scores for global health status (p<0.01) and emotional functioning (p<0.01) showed significant improvement. Additionally, symptom scores, including fatigue (p=0.02) and nausea and vomiting (p=0.02), decreased. However, financial difficulties worsened after CRT (p=0.02). In the EORTC QLQ-OES18, post-CRT symptom scores for eating (p<0.01), reflux (p=0.03), and pain (p<0.01) showed significant improvement. Conclusion Despite COVID-19-related delays, CRT enhanced nutrition, global health, and symptom control in esophageal cancer, although financial burdens increased. Integrating socioeconomic support with oncologic care is vital during health crises.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Purpose: Protective ileostomy and colostomy are performed in patients undergoing low anterior resection with a high leakage risk. We aimed to compare surgical, medical, and daily care complications between these 2 ostomies in order to make individual choice. Methods: Patients who underwent low anterior resection for rectal tumors with protective stomas between January 2011 and September 2018 were enrolled. Stoma-related complications were prospectively recorded by wound, ostomy, and continence nurses. The cancer stage and treatment data were obtained from the Taiwan Cancer Database of our Big Data Center. Other demographic data were collected retrospectively from medical notes. The complications after stoma creation and after the stoma reversal were compared. Results: There were 176 patients with protective colostomy and 234 with protective ileostomy. Protective ileostomy had higher proportions of high output from the stoma for 2 consecutive days than protective colostomy (11.1% vs. 0%, P<0.001). Protective colostomy resulted in more stoma retraction than protective ileostomy (21.6% vs. 9.4%, P=0.001). Female, open operation, ileostomy, and carrying stoma more than 4 months were also significantly associated with a higher risk of stoma-related complications during diversion. For stoma retraction, the multivariate analysis revealed that female (odds ratio [OR], 4.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 2.13–7.69; P<0.001) and long diversion duration (≥4 months; OR, 2.33; 95% CI, 1.22–4.43; P=0.010) were independent risk factors, but ileostomy was an independent favorable factor (OR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.22–0.72; P=0.003). The incidence of complication after stoma reversal did not differ between colostomy group and ileostomy group (24.3% vs. 20.9%, P=0.542). Conclusion We suggest avoiding colostomy in patients who are female and potential prolonged diversion when stoma retraction is a concern. Otherwise, ileostomy should be avoided for patients with impaired renal function. Wise selection and flexibility are more important than using one type of stoma routinely.

Background/Aims: Finite nucleos(t)ide analog (NA) therapy has been proposed as an alternative treatment strategy for chronic hepatitis B (CHB), but biomarkers for post-treatment monitoring are limited. We investigated whether measuring hepatitis B core-related antigen (HBcrAg) after NA cessation may stratify the risk of subsequent clinical relapse (CR). Methods: This retrospective multicenter analysis enrolled adults with CHB who were prospectively monitored after discontinuing entecavir or tenofovir with negative HBeAg and undetectable HBV DNA at the end of treatment (EOT). Patients with cirrhosis or malignancy were excluded. CR was defined as serum alanine aminotransferase > two times the upper limit of normal with recurrent viremia. We applied time-dependent Cox proportional hazard models to clarify the association between HBcrAg levels and subsequent CR. Results: The cohort included 203 patients (median age, 49.8 years; 76.8% male; 60.6% entecavir) who had been treated for a median of 36.9 months (interquartile range [IQR], 36.5–40.1). During a median post-treatment follow-up of 31.7 months (IQR, 16.7–67.1), CR occurred in 104 patients with a 5-year cumulative incidence of 54.8% (95% confidence interval [CI], 47.1–62.4%). Time-varying HBcrAg level was a significant risk factor for subsequent CR (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.53 per log U/mL; 95% CI, 1.12–2.08) with adjustment for EOT HBsAg, EOT anti-HBe, EOT HBcrAg and time-varying HBsAg. During follow-up, HBcrAg <1,000 U/mL predicted a lower risk of CR (aHR, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.21–0.81). Conclusions Dynamic measurement of HBcrAg after NA cessation is predictive of subsequent CR and may be useful to guide post-treatment monitoring.