Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.

Gastric cancer is one of the most common cancers in both Korea and worldwide. Since 2004, the Korean Practice Guidelines for Gastric Cancer have been regularly updated, with the 4th edition published in 2022. The 4th edition was the result of a collaborative work by an interdisciplinary team, including experts in gastric surgery, gastroenterology, endoscopy, medical oncology, abdominal radiology, pathology, nuclear medicine, radiation oncology, and guideline development methodology. The current guideline is the 5th version, an updated version of the 4th edition. In this guideline, 6 key questions (KQs) were updated or proposed after a collaborative review by the working group, and 7 statements were developed, or revised, or discussed based on a systematic review using the MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, and KoreaMed database. Over the past 2 years, there have been significant changes in systemic treatment, leading to major updates and revisions focused on this area.Additionally, minor modifications have been made in other sections, incorporating recent research findings. The level of evidence and grading of recommendations were categorized according to the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system. Key factors for recommendation included the level of evidence, benefit, harm, and clinical applicability. The working group reviewed and discussed the recommendations to reach a consensus. The structure of this guideline remains similar to the 2022 version.Earlier sections cover general considerations, such as screening, diagnosis, and staging of endoscopy, pathology, radiology, and nuclear medicine. In the latter sections, statements are provided for each KQ based on clinical evidence, with flowcharts supporting these statements through meta-analysis and references. This multidisciplinary, evidence-based gastric cancer guideline aims to support clinicians in providing optimal care for gastric cancer patients.

Background and Objectives: This study aimed to analyze postoperative performance and mapping characteristics of cochlear implants (CIs) by comparing patients with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to those without ASD, and to suggest CI mapping solutions in patients with ASD.Subjects and Method This retrospective study enrolled 10 children with ASD and hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI (ASD group), and 20 children with bilateral hearing disabilities, who received simultaneous bilateral CI at the same age (control group). CI performance was analyzed using speech perception tests (categorical auditory performance score and monosyllable, bisyllable, and Ling’s 6 tests) and a sound field test. The mapping characteristics focused on variables related to stimulus intensity and fine-tuning. Results: The performance of the ASD group was significantly poorer than that of the control group in all speech perception and sound field tests. At the comfortable (C) and threshold (T) levels, the ASD group scored significantly lower than the control group. The dynamic range of ASD group was significantly narrower than the control group. The ASD group had significantly lower pulse width, sensitivity, and volume than control group. Conclusion CI mapping in the ASD group showed practical limitations. To avoid overstimulation in patients with ASD, the dynamic range should be set narrow, or the C/T level should be set lower than normal. Key control factors, such as pulse width, sensitivity, and volume, should be set lower than the control group. Although lower performance from CI is generally expected in the ASD group, CI mapping in the ASD group requires a long-term approach with dedicated efforts and patience.

Objectives: ：This study was aimed to determine whether the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms inmood disorders is statistically significantly related to the difference between NLR, MLR, PLR. Methods: ：We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 408 patients who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder type 1 (BP-I) and major depressive disorder (MDD) and underwent complete blood count.Groups were divided based on the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms. The statistical significance of the differences in NLR, MLR, and PLR between each group was examined using t-test. Results: ：When 382 mood disorder patients were divided into groups based solely on the presence or absence ofpsychotic symptoms, the difference between NLR and MLR was statistically significant (NLR: p=0.009, MLR:p=0.016). When dividing the mood disorder patients into subgroups of 176 BP-I patients and 206 MDD patients and using the same method for each subgroup, the tendency for higher NLR and MLR was maintained, but the sta-tistical significance disappeared. Conclusions ：This study suggests the possibility of relationship between psychotic symptoms and NLR and MLR in mood disorders, but additional research appears to be necessary to clarify the possibility.

Objectives: ：This study was aimed to determine whether the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms inmood disorders is statistically significantly related to the difference between NLR, MLR, PLR. Methods: ：We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of 408 patients who were hospitalized with a diagnosis of bipolar disorder type 1 (BP-I) and major depressive disorder (MDD) and underwent complete blood count.Groups were divided based on the presence or absence of psychotic symptoms. The statistical significance of the differences in NLR, MLR, and PLR between each group was examined using t-test. Results: ：When 382 mood disorder patients were divided into groups based solely on the presence or absence ofpsychotic symptoms, the difference between NLR and MLR was statistically significant (NLR: p=0.009, MLR:p=0.016). When dividing the mood disorder patients into subgroups of 176 BP-I patients and 206 MDD patients and using the same method for each subgroup, the tendency for higher NLR and MLR was maintained, but the sta-tistical significance disappeared. Conclusions ：This study suggests the possibility of relationship between psychotic symptoms and NLR and MLR in mood disorders, but additional research appears to be necessary to clarify the possibility.