Interest in embedding diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) across medical training has grown rapidly, yet the overall landscape of DEI-related medical education research remains fragmented. This scoping review mapped recent DEI-related curricula, programs, and training initiatives implemented in undergraduate medical education (UME) and graduate medical education (GME) settings. We conducted a PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews)–reported scoping review. PubMed was searched for studies published between 2020 and 2025 that examined DEI-focused educational activities in UME and GME involving medical students, residents or fellows, or faculty members. Data were extracted on publication year, country, target population, study design, and primary DEI domain, and results were summarized descriptively. Of 203 records identified, 164 met the inclusion criteria. Publications increased sharply after 2022 and were predominantly US-based. Most studies focused on residents, followed by medical students, faculty members, and analyses of program websites or institutional documents. Studies clustered into five domains: (1) learning environment and discrimination; (2) admissions and workforce diversity; (3) frameworks and measures; (4) curriculum development and implementation; and (5) outcomes and evaluation. Ten studies were purposively selected for narrative synthesis across key educational contexts. Most reported short-term learner outcomes, with limited evidence of behavior change, organizational impact, or patient-level outcomes. DEI-related medical education research is expanding; however, it remains geographically concentrated and methodologically constrained. Future studies should adopt context-sensitive, longitudinal, and multi-level designs to better inform curriculum planning, implementation, and evaluation.

Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are increasingly emphasized in medical education worldwide. However, it remains unclear how these values are reflected within the context of Korean medical education. This study explores how DEI is articulated through an analysis of the official websites of Korean medical schools. We conducted a content analysis of the official websites of 40 Korean medical schools. DEI-related synonyms and associated phrases were identified across mission and values statements, educational objectives, graduate outcomes, and student support sections. Identified phrases were coded according to the dimensions of diversity, equity, and inclusion. Quantitative frequencies were then summarized. For further analysis, qualitative thematic analysis and integrated analysis were performed to examine how each DEI element was conceptually represented. Among the 40 universities, 32 institutions (80%) demonstrated at least one component of DEI. Diversity (60%) was more frequently referenced than inclusion (50%) and equity (42.5%). DEI elements were most prominently observed in student support sections (62.5%) and were least frequently identified in mission and values statements (15%) and educational objectives (12.5%). In the qualitative analysis, diversity was primarily described in terms of respect for diversity within organizations and global citizenship. Equity was largely limited to scholarships and material support for disadvantaged students. Inclusion mainly emphasized the creation of respectful environments. Overall, in Korean medical schools, DEI was more commonly represented through student support mechanisms than through institutional philosophy or educational objectives. An integrated approach to the implementation of DEI is therefore needed to achieve meaningful change in Korean medical education.

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.

Background: Intellectual disability (ID) may be associated with an increased risk of diabetes mellitus (DM). However, evidence from longitudinal studies is scarce, particularly in Asian populations. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used representative linked data from the Korea National Disability Registration System and the National Health Insurance Service database. Adults (≥20 years) who received a national health examination in 2009 (3,385 individuals with ID and 3,463,604 individuals without ID) were included and followed until 2020. ID was identified using legal registration information. Incident DM was defined by prescription records with relevant diagnostic codes. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for DM risks in individuals with ID compared to those without ID. Results: Over a mean follow-up of 9.8 years, incident DM occurred in 302 (8.9%) individuals with ID and 299,156 (8.4%) individuals without ID. Having ID was associated with increased DM risk (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.55). Sensitivity analysis confirmed a higher DM risk in individuals with ID (aHR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.56) than those with other disabilities (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.13) or no disability (reference). Stratified analysis showed higher DM risk in non-hypertensive subjects (aHR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43 to 1.86) compared to hypertensive subjects (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.26; P for interaction <0.001). Conclusion Adults with ID have an increased risk of developing DM, highlighting the need for targeted public health strategies to promote DM prevention in this population.

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.

Background: Intellectual disability (ID) may be associated with an increased risk of diabetes mellitus (DM). However, evidence from longitudinal studies is scarce, particularly in Asian populations. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used representative linked data from the Korea National Disability Registration System and the National Health Insurance Service database. Adults (≥20 years) who received a national health examination in 2009 (3,385 individuals with ID and 3,463,604 individuals without ID) were included and followed until 2020. ID was identified using legal registration information. Incident DM was defined by prescription records with relevant diagnostic codes. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for DM risks in individuals with ID compared to those without ID. Results: Over a mean follow-up of 9.8 years, incident DM occurred in 302 (8.9%) individuals with ID and 299,156 (8.4%) individuals without ID. Having ID was associated with increased DM risk (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.55). Sensitivity analysis confirmed a higher DM risk in individuals with ID (aHR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.56) than those with other disabilities (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.13) or no disability (reference). Stratified analysis showed higher DM risk in non-hypertensive subjects (aHR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43 to 1.86) compared to hypertensive subjects (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.26; P for interaction <0.001). Conclusion Adults with ID have an increased risk of developing DM, highlighting the need for targeted public health strategies to promote DM prevention in this population.

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.

Background: Intellectual disability (ID) may be associated with an increased risk of diabetes mellitus (DM). However, evidence from longitudinal studies is scarce, particularly in Asian populations. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used representative linked data from the Korea National Disability Registration System and the National Health Insurance Service database. Adults (≥20 years) who received a national health examination in 2009 (3,385 individuals with ID and 3,463,604 individuals without ID) were included and followed until 2020. ID was identified using legal registration information. Incident DM was defined by prescription records with relevant diagnostic codes. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for DM risks in individuals with ID compared to those without ID. Results: Over a mean follow-up of 9.8 years, incident DM occurred in 302 (8.9%) individuals with ID and 299,156 (8.4%) individuals without ID. Having ID was associated with increased DM risk (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.55). Sensitivity analysis confirmed a higher DM risk in individuals with ID (aHR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.56) than those with other disabilities (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.13) or no disability (reference). Stratified analysis showed higher DM risk in non-hypertensive subjects (aHR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43 to 1.86) compared to hypertensive subjects (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.26; P for interaction <0.001). Conclusion Adults with ID have an increased risk of developing DM, highlighting the need for targeted public health strategies to promote DM prevention in this population.

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.

Background: Intellectual disability (ID) may be associated with an increased risk of diabetes mellitus (DM). However, evidence from longitudinal studies is scarce, particularly in Asian populations. Methods: This retrospective cohort study used representative linked data from the Korea National Disability Registration System and the National Health Insurance Service database. Adults (≥20 years) who received a national health examination in 2009 (3,385 individuals with ID and 3,463,604 individuals without ID) were included and followed until 2020. ID was identified using legal registration information. Incident DM was defined by prescription records with relevant diagnostic codes. Multivariable-adjusted Cox proportional hazards regression models were used to estimate the adjusted hazard ratio (aHR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) for DM risks in individuals with ID compared to those without ID. Results: Over a mean follow-up of 9.8 years, incident DM occurred in 302 (8.9%) individuals with ID and 299,156 (8.4%) individuals without ID. Having ID was associated with increased DM risk (aHR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.23 to 1.55). Sensitivity analysis confirmed a higher DM risk in individuals with ID (aHR, 1.39; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.56) than those with other disabilities (aHR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.10 to 1.13) or no disability (reference). Stratified analysis showed higher DM risk in non-hypertensive subjects (aHR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.43 to 1.86) compared to hypertensive subjects (aHR, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.26; P for interaction <0.001). Conclusion Adults with ID have an increased risk of developing DM, highlighting the need for targeted public health strategies to promote DM prevention in this population.