Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Physician–scientists play a pivotal role in bridging clinical practice and biomedical research, advancing medical science, and tackling complex healthcare challenges. In South Korea, the declining number of medical doctors engaging in basic medical sciences has prompted the implementation of various training initiatives since the 2000s. Notable initiatives, such as the Integrated Physician–Scientist Training Program (2019) and the Global Physician–Scientist Training Program (2024), aim to cultivate multidisciplinary physician–scientists capable of addressing unmet medical needs. This study offers a comprehensive overview of the current training systems, funding mechanisms, and strategic approaches for physician–scientists in South Korea, compares them with international best practices, and proposes actionable policy recommendations to enhance their effectiveness and long-term sustainability.

Physician–scientists play a pivotal role in bridging clinical practice and biomedical research, advancing medical science, and tackling complex healthcare challenges. In South Korea, the declining number of medical doctors engaging in basic medical sciences has prompted the implementation of various training initiatives since the 2000s. Notable initiatives, such as the Integrated Physician–Scientist Training Program (2019) and the Global Physician–Scientist Training Program (2024), aim to cultivate multidisciplinary physician–scientists capable of addressing unmet medical needs. This study offers a comprehensive overview of the current training systems, funding mechanisms, and strategic approaches for physician–scientists in South Korea, compares them with international best practices, and proposes actionable policy recommendations to enhance their effectiveness and long-term sustainability.

Purpose: The novel curability criteria for elderly (EL) patients have been proposed to stratify their risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), following non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EL criteria and compare them with those of the well-known eCura system. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 143 patients who did not meet the curative ESD criteria at a tertiary hospital in Korea between 2011 and 2022. Of these, 102 underwent additional surgery, while 41 were followed up without further treatment. The LNM rates based on the EL and eCura systems were stratified and compared. Results: In the surgery group, 29.4% (30/102) patients were classified as EL-low (EL-L) and 70.2% (72/102) as EL-high (EL-H). The LNM rates (95% confidence interval) were 0.0% (0.0–11.6) and 9.7% (4.0–19.0) for EL-L and EL-H, respectively (P=0.102). EL-L was closely aligned with the eCura low-risk category, with a similar patient proportion (32.4%) and an LNM rate of 0.0% (0.0–10.6). The eCura system classified 94.1% (48/51) of the EL-L patients as lowrisk, with an 86% concordance rate (123/143). Discordant cases included patients with positive vertical margins, but without other risk factors, who were classified as EL-H without LNM. Conclusions Patients with EL-L showed no LNM, and the EL criteria demonstrated high concordance with the eCura system. The EL criteria may be as effective as the eCura system in identifying low-risk patients after non-curative ESD for EGC.

Purpose: The novel curability criteria for elderly (EL) patients have been proposed to stratify their risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), following non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EL criteria and compare them with those of the well-known eCura system. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 143 patients who did not meet the curative ESD criteria at a tertiary hospital in Korea between 2011 and 2022. Of these, 102 underwent additional surgery, while 41 were followed up without further treatment. The LNM rates based on the EL and eCura systems were stratified and compared. Results: In the surgery group, 29.4% (30/102) patients were classified as EL-low (EL-L) and 70.2% (72/102) as EL-high (EL-H). The LNM rates (95% confidence interval) were 0.0% (0.0–11.6) and 9.7% (4.0–19.0) for EL-L and EL-H, respectively (P=0.102). EL-L was closely aligned with the eCura low-risk category, with a similar patient proportion (32.4%) and an LNM rate of 0.0% (0.0–10.6). The eCura system classified 94.1% (48/51) of the EL-L patients as lowrisk, with an 86% concordance rate (123/143). Discordant cases included patients with positive vertical margins, but without other risk factors, who were classified as EL-H without LNM. Conclusions Patients with EL-L showed no LNM, and the EL criteria demonstrated high concordance with the eCura system. The EL criteria may be as effective as the eCura system in identifying low-risk patients after non-curative ESD for EGC.

Physician–scientists play a pivotal role in bridging clinical practice and biomedical research, advancing medical science, and tackling complex healthcare challenges. In South Korea, the declining number of medical doctors engaging in basic medical sciences has prompted the implementation of various training initiatives since the 2000s. Notable initiatives, such as the Integrated Physician–Scientist Training Program (2019) and the Global Physician–Scientist Training Program (2024), aim to cultivate multidisciplinary physician–scientists capable of addressing unmet medical needs. This study offers a comprehensive overview of the current training systems, funding mechanisms, and strategic approaches for physician–scientists in South Korea, compares them with international best practices, and proposes actionable policy recommendations to enhance their effectiveness and long-term sustainability.

Background: Complete revascularization has demonstrated better outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and multivessel disease. However, in the case of left main (LM) culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease, there is limited evidence to suggest that complete revascularization is better. Methods: We reviewed 16,831 patients in the Korea Acute Myocardial Infarction Registry who were treated from July 2016 to June 2020, and 399 patients were enrolled with LM culprit lesion AMI treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. We categorized the patients as those treated with complete revascularization (n=295) or incomplete revascularization (n=104). The study endpoint was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, and stroke. We performed propensity score matching (PSM) and analyzed the incidence of MACCE at 1 year. Results: After PSM, the two groups were well balanced. There was no significant difference between the two groups in MACCE at 1 year (12.1% vs. 15.2%; hazard ratio, 1.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–2.74; p=0.524) after PSM. The components of MACCE and major bleeding were also not significantly different. Conclusion There was no significant difference in clinical outcomes between the groups treated with complete or incomplete revascularization for LM culprit lesion AMI with multivessel disease.

Purpose: The novel curability criteria for elderly (EL) patients have been proposed to stratify their risk of lymph node metastasis (LNM), following non-curative endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD) for early gastric cancer (EGC). Hence, this study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of the EL criteria and compare them with those of the well-known eCura system. Materials and Methods: A retrospective analysis was performed on 143 patients who did not meet the curative ESD criteria at a tertiary hospital in Korea between 2011 and 2022. Of these, 102 underwent additional surgery, while 41 were followed up without further treatment. The LNM rates based on the EL and eCura systems were stratified and compared. Results: In the surgery group, 29.4% (30/102) patients were classified as EL-low (EL-L) and 70.2% (72/102) as EL-high (EL-H). The LNM rates (95% confidence interval) were 0.0% (0.0–11.6) and 9.7% (4.0–19.0) for EL-L and EL-H, respectively (P=0.102). EL-L was closely aligned with the eCura low-risk category, with a similar patient proportion (32.4%) and an LNM rate of 0.0% (0.0–10.6). The eCura system classified 94.1% (48/51) of the EL-L patients as lowrisk, with an 86% concordance rate (123/143). Discordant cases included patients with positive vertical margins, but without other risk factors, who were classified as EL-H without LNM. Conclusions Patients with EL-L showed no LNM, and the EL criteria demonstrated high concordance with the eCura system. The EL criteria may be as effective as the eCura system in identifying low-risk patients after non-curative ESD for EGC.

Physician–scientists play a pivotal role in bridging clinical practice and biomedical research, advancing medical science, and tackling complex healthcare challenges. In South Korea, the declining number of medical doctors engaging in basic medical sciences has prompted the implementation of various training initiatives since the 2000s. Notable initiatives, such as the Integrated Physician–Scientist Training Program (2019) and the Global Physician–Scientist Training Program (2024), aim to cultivate multidisciplinary physician–scientists capable of addressing unmet medical needs. This study offers a comprehensive overview of the current training systems, funding mechanisms, and strategic approaches for physician–scientists in South Korea, compares them with international best practices, and proposes actionable policy recommendations to enhance their effectiveness and long-term sustainability.