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.

Background/Aims: Distal mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) measuring via pH-impedance may be valuable in diagnosing patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). However, its wide adoption is hindered by cost and invasiveness. This study investigates whether baseline impedance measured during high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM-BI) can predict pathological MNBI. Methods: A cross-sectional study in Taiwan included 74 subjects suspected of LPR, who underwent HRIM (MMS) and pH-impedance testing (Diversatek), after stopping proton pump inhibitors for more than 7 days. Subjects with grade C or D esophagitis or Barrett’s esophagus were excluded. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: those with concomitant typical reflux symptoms (CTRS, n = 28) and those with isolated LPR symptoms (ILPRS, n = 46). HRIM-BI measurements focused on both distal and proximal esophagi. Pathological MNBI was identified as values below 2065 Ω, measured 3 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter. Results: In all subjects, distal HRIM-BI values correlated weakly with distal MNBI(r = 0.34-0.39, P < 0.005). However, in patients with ILPRS, distal HRIM-BI corelated moderately with distal MNBI(r = 0.43-0.48, P < 0.005). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.78 (P = 0.001) with a sensitivity of 0.83 and a specificity of 0.68. No correlation exists between distal HRIM-BI and distal MNBI in patients with CTRS, and between proximal HRIM-BI and proximal MNBI in both groups. Conclusions Distal HRIM-BI from HRIM may potentially predict pathological MNBI in patients with ILPRS, but not in those with CTRS. Future outcome studies linked to the metric are warranted.

Background/Aims: Distal mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) measuring via pH-impedance may be valuable in diagnosing patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). However, its wide adoption is hindered by cost and invasiveness. This study investigates whether baseline impedance measured during high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM-BI) can predict pathological MNBI. Methods: A cross-sectional study in Taiwan included 74 subjects suspected of LPR, who underwent HRIM (MMS) and pH-impedance testing (Diversatek), after stopping proton pump inhibitors for more than 7 days. Subjects with grade C or D esophagitis or Barrett’s esophagus were excluded. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: those with concomitant typical reflux symptoms (CTRS, n = 28) and those with isolated LPR symptoms (ILPRS, n = 46). HRIM-BI measurements focused on both distal and proximal esophagi. Pathological MNBI was identified as values below 2065 Ω, measured 3 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter. Results: In all subjects, distal HRIM-BI values correlated weakly with distal MNBI(r = 0.34-0.39, P < 0.005). However, in patients with ILPRS, distal HRIM-BI corelated moderately with distal MNBI(r = 0.43-0.48, P < 0.005). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.78 (P = 0.001) with a sensitivity of 0.83 and a specificity of 0.68. No correlation exists between distal HRIM-BI and distal MNBI in patients with CTRS, and between proximal HRIM-BI and proximal MNBI in both groups. Conclusions Distal HRIM-BI from HRIM may potentially predict pathological MNBI in patients with ILPRS, but not in those with CTRS. Future outcome studies linked to the metric are warranted.

Background/Aims: Distal mean nocturnal baseline impedance (MNBI) measuring via pH-impedance may be valuable in diagnosing patients with suspected laryngopharyngeal reflux (LPR). However, its wide adoption is hindered by cost and invasiveness. This study investigates whether baseline impedance measured during high-resolution impedance manometry (HRIM-BI) can predict pathological MNBI. Methods: A cross-sectional study in Taiwan included 74 subjects suspected of LPR, who underwent HRIM (MMS) and pH-impedance testing (Diversatek), after stopping proton pump inhibitors for more than 7 days. Subjects with grade C or D esophagitis or Barrett’s esophagus were excluded. The cohort was divided into 2 groups: those with concomitant typical reflux symptoms (CTRS, n = 28) and those with isolated LPR symptoms (ILPRS, n = 46). HRIM-BI measurements focused on both distal and proximal esophagi. Pathological MNBI was identified as values below 2065 Ω, measured 3 cm above the lower esophageal sphincter. Results: In all subjects, distal HRIM-BI values correlated weakly with distal MNBI(r = 0.34-0.39, P < 0.005). However, in patients with ILPRS, distal HRIM-BI corelated moderately with distal MNBI(r = 0.43-0.48, P < 0.005). The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curve was 0.78 (P = 0.001) with a sensitivity of 0.83 and a specificity of 0.68. No correlation exists between distal HRIM-BI and distal MNBI in patients with CTRS, and between proximal HRIM-BI and proximal MNBI in both groups. Conclusions Distal HRIM-BI from HRIM may potentially predict pathological MNBI in patients with ILPRS, but not in those with CTRS. Future outcome studies linked to the metric are warranted.

Male factors contribute to 50% of infertility cases, with 20%-30% of cases being solely attributed to male infertility. Helicase for meiosis 1 ( HFM1 ) plays a crucial role in ensuring proper crossover formation and synapsis of homologous chromosomes during meiosis, an essential process in gametogenesis. HFM1 gene mutations are associated with male infertility, particularly in cases of non-obstructive azoospermia and severe oligozoospermia. However, the effects of intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI) in HFM1 -related infertility cases remain inadequately explored. This study identified novel biallelic HFM1 variants through whole-exome sequencing (WES) in a Chinese patient with severe oligozoospermia, which was confirmed by Sanger sequencing. The pathogenicity of these variants was assessed using real-time quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) and immunoblotting, which revealed a significant reduction in HFM1 mRNA and protein levels in spermatozoa compared to those in a healthy control. Transmission electron microscopy revealed morphological abnormalities in sperm cells, including defects in the head and flagellum. Despite these abnormalities, ICSI treatment resulted in a favorable fertility outcome for the patient, indicating that assisted reproductive techniques (ART) can be effective in managing HFM1 -related male infertility. These findings offer valuable insights into the management of such cases.
Humans ; Male ; Sperm Injections, Intracytoplasmic ; Oligospermia/therapy* ; Adult ; Spermatozoa/ultrastructure* ; Exome Sequencing ; Mutation

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.