Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

Purpose: To investigate whether using a continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) for the second time (2nd_CGM) would be effective after using it for the first time (1st_CGM), depending on age. Materials and Methods: This study included patients aged ≥40 years who were diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and had used a CGM at least twice between 2017 and 2021. Participants were divided into two groups based on their age: those aged <60 years and those aged ≥60 years. We assessed the glycemic control status of the 1st_CGM and 2nd_CGM, along with the glycemic variability. Results: Overall, 15 patients were included in the study. The mean glucose level in users aged <60 years significantly decreased (p<0.001) owing to the CGM use, while it did not increase in those aged ≥60 years. In users aged ≥60 years, the 1st_CGM group showed a significant decrease in blood glucose levels over time (p<0.05), whereas the 2nd_CGM group only showed a non-significant decreasing trend. The time in range tended to increase in those aged <60 years but decreased in those aged ≥60 years. In those aged <60 years, the mean amplitude of glycemic excursions (p<0.001), standard deviation (p<0.05), and coefficient of variation (p<0.001) significantly decreased. In those aged ≥60 years, these parameters exhibited a non-significant decreasing trend. Conclusion Glycemic effect and variability improved as expected with 1st_CGM use. However, 2nd_CGM did not significantly improve glycemic effect or variability in users aged ≥60 years, contrary to expectations. To address this issue, further investigation is needed to understand why, compared to 1st_CGM, 2nd_CGM fails to achieve better glycemic control in individuals aged ≥60 years.

This comprehensive review explores the broad landscape of brain–computer interface (BCI) technology and its potential use in intensive care units (ICUs), particularly for patients with motor impairments such as quadriplegia or severe brain injury. By employing brain signals from various sensing techniques, BCIs offer enhanced communication and motor rehabilitation strategies for patients. This review underscores the concept and efficacy of noninvasive, electroencephalogram-based BCIs in facilitating both communicative interactions and motor function recovery. Additionally, it highlights the current research gap in intuitive “stop” mechanisms within motor rehabilitation protocols, emphasizing the need for advancements that prioritize patient safety and individualized responsiveness. Furthermore, it advocates for more focused research that considers the unique requirements of ICU environments to address the challenges arising from patient variability, fatigue, and limited applicability of current BCI systems outside of experimental settings.

This comprehensive review explores the broad landscape of brain–computer interface (BCI) technology and its potential use in intensive care units (ICUs), particularly for patients with motor impairments such as quadriplegia or severe brain injury. By employing brain signals from various sensing techniques, BCIs offer enhanced communication and motor rehabilitation strategies for patients. This review underscores the concept and efficacy of noninvasive, electroencephalogram-based BCIs in facilitating both communicative interactions and motor function recovery. Additionally, it highlights the current research gap in intuitive “stop” mechanisms within motor rehabilitation protocols, emphasizing the need for advancements that prioritize patient safety and individualized responsiveness. Furthermore, it advocates for more focused research that considers the unique requirements of ICU environments to address the challenges arising from patient variability, fatigue, and limited applicability of current BCI systems outside of experimental settings.

This comprehensive review explores the broad landscape of brain–computer interface (BCI) technology and its potential use in intensive care units (ICUs), particularly for patients with motor impairments such as quadriplegia or severe brain injury. By employing brain signals from various sensing techniques, BCIs offer enhanced communication and motor rehabilitation strategies for patients. This review underscores the concept and efficacy of noninvasive, electroencephalogram-based BCIs in facilitating both communicative interactions and motor function recovery. Additionally, it highlights the current research gap in intuitive “stop” mechanisms within motor rehabilitation protocols, emphasizing the need for advancements that prioritize patient safety and individualized responsiveness. Furthermore, it advocates for more focused research that considers the unique requirements of ICU environments to address the challenges arising from patient variability, fatigue, and limited applicability of current BCI systems outside of experimental settings.

This comprehensive review explores the broad landscape of brain–computer interface (BCI) technology and its potential use in intensive care units (ICUs), particularly for patients with motor impairments such as quadriplegia or severe brain injury. By employing brain signals from various sensing techniques, BCIs offer enhanced communication and motor rehabilitation strategies for patients. This review underscores the concept and efficacy of noninvasive, electroencephalogram-based BCIs in facilitating both communicative interactions and motor function recovery. Additionally, it highlights the current research gap in intuitive “stop” mechanisms within motor rehabilitation protocols, emphasizing the need for advancements that prioritize patient safety and individualized responsiveness. Furthermore, it advocates for more focused research that considers the unique requirements of ICU environments to address the challenges arising from patient variability, fatigue, and limited applicability of current BCI systems outside of experimental settings.

Streptomyces avermitilis genome includes 33 genes encoding monooxygenation-catalyzing cytochrome P450 enzymes. We investigated the structure of CYP107P2 and its interactions with terpenoid compounds. The recombinant CYP107P2 protein was expressed in Escherichia coli and the purified enzyme exhibited a typical P450 spectrum upon CO-binding in its reduced state. Type-I substrate-binding spectral titrations were observed with various terpenoid compounds, including α-pinene, β-pinene, α-terpinyl acetate, and (+)-3-carene. The calculated binding affinities (Kd) ranged from 15.9 to 50.8 µM. The X-ray crystal structure of CYP107P2 was determined at 1.99 Å resolution, with a well-conserved overall P450 folding conformation. The terpenoid com-pound docking models illustrated that the structural interaction between monoterpenes and CYP107P2, with the distance between heme and terpenes ranging from 3.4 to 5.4 Å, indicates potential substrate binding for P450 enzyme. This study suggests that CYP107P2 is a Streptomyces P450 enzyme capable of catalyzing terpenes as substrates, signifying noteworthy advancements in comprehending a novel P450 enzyme’s involvement in terpene reactions.