Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Objective: Multiple cohort studies have investigated the potential link between anesthesia and dementia. However, mixed findings necessitate closer examination. This study aimed to investigate the association between anesthesia exposure and the incidence of dementia, considering different anesthesia types and anesthetic agents. Methods: This nationwide cohort study utilized data from the South Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, covering 62,541 participants, to investigate the correlation between anesthesia exposure and dementia incidence. Results: Results revealed an increased risk of dementia in individuals who underwent general (hazard ratio [HR], 1.318;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.061−1.637) or regional/local anesthesia (HR, 2.097; 95% CI, 1.887−2.329) compared to those who did not. However, combined general and regional/local anesthesia did not significantly increase dementia risk (HR, 1.097; 95% CI, 0.937−1.284). Notably, individual anesthetic agents exhibited varying risks; desflurane and midazolam showed increased risks, whereas propofol showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study provides unique insights into the nuanced relationship between anesthesia, individual anesthetic agents, and the incidence of dementia. While confirming a general association between anesthesia exposure and dementia risk, this study also emphasizes the importance of considering specific agents. These findings under-score the need for careful evaluation and long-term cognitive monitoring after anesthesia.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Objective: Multiple cohort studies have investigated the potential link between anesthesia and dementia. However, mixed findings necessitate closer examination. This study aimed to investigate the association between anesthesia exposure and the incidence of dementia, considering different anesthesia types and anesthetic agents. Methods: This nationwide cohort study utilized data from the South Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, covering 62,541 participants, to investigate the correlation between anesthesia exposure and dementia incidence. Results: Results revealed an increased risk of dementia in individuals who underwent general (hazard ratio [HR], 1.318;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.061−1.637) or regional/local anesthesia (HR, 2.097; 95% CI, 1.887−2.329) compared to those who did not. However, combined general and regional/local anesthesia did not significantly increase dementia risk (HR, 1.097; 95% CI, 0.937−1.284). Notably, individual anesthetic agents exhibited varying risks; desflurane and midazolam showed increased risks, whereas propofol showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study provides unique insights into the nuanced relationship between anesthesia, individual anesthetic agents, and the incidence of dementia. While confirming a general association between anesthesia exposure and dementia risk, this study also emphasizes the importance of considering specific agents. These findings under-score the need for careful evaluation and long-term cognitive monitoring after anesthesia.

Objective: Multiple cohort studies have investigated the potential link between anesthesia and dementia. However, mixed findings necessitate closer examination. This study aimed to investigate the association between anesthesia exposure and the incidence of dementia, considering different anesthesia types and anesthetic agents. Methods: This nationwide cohort study utilized data from the South Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, covering 62,541 participants, to investigate the correlation between anesthesia exposure and dementia incidence. Results: Results revealed an increased risk of dementia in individuals who underwent general (hazard ratio [HR], 1.318;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.061−1.637) or regional/local anesthesia (HR, 2.097; 95% CI, 1.887−2.329) compared to those who did not. However, combined general and regional/local anesthesia did not significantly increase dementia risk (HR, 1.097; 95% CI, 0.937−1.284). Notably, individual anesthetic agents exhibited varying risks; desflurane and midazolam showed increased risks, whereas propofol showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study provides unique insights into the nuanced relationship between anesthesia, individual anesthetic agents, and the incidence of dementia. While confirming a general association between anesthesia exposure and dementia risk, this study also emphasizes the importance of considering specific agents. These findings under-score the need for careful evaluation and long-term cognitive monitoring after anesthesia.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Objective: Multiple cohort studies have investigated the potential link between anesthesia and dementia. However, mixed findings necessitate closer examination. This study aimed to investigate the association between anesthesia exposure and the incidence of dementia, considering different anesthesia types and anesthetic agents. Methods: This nationwide cohort study utilized data from the South Korean Health Insurance Review and Assessment Service database, covering 62,541 participants, to investigate the correlation between anesthesia exposure and dementia incidence. Results: Results revealed an increased risk of dementia in individuals who underwent general (hazard ratio [HR], 1.318;95% confidence interval [CI], 1.061−1.637) or regional/local anesthesia (HR, 2.097; 95% CI, 1.887−2.329) compared to those who did not. However, combined general and regional/local anesthesia did not significantly increase dementia risk (HR, 1.097; 95% CI, 0.937−1.284). Notably, individual anesthetic agents exhibited varying risks; desflurane and midazolam showed increased risks, whereas propofol showed no significant difference. Conclusion This study provides unique insights into the nuanced relationship between anesthesia, individual anesthetic agents, and the incidence of dementia. While confirming a general association between anesthesia exposure and dementia risk, this study also emphasizes the importance of considering specific agents. These findings under-score the need for careful evaluation and long-term cognitive monitoring after anesthesia.

Purpose: Biomarkers predicting clinically significant prostate cancer (sPC) before biopsy are currently lacking. This study aimed to develop a non-invasive urine test to predict sPC in at-risk men using urinary metabolomic profiles. Materials and Methods: Urine samples from 934 at-risk subjects and 268 treatment-naïve PC patients were subjected to liquid chromatography/mass spectrophotometry (LC-MS)-based metabolomics profiling using both C18 and hydrophilic interaction liquid chromatography (HILIC) column analyses. Four models were constructed (training cohort [n=647]) and validated (validation cohort [n=344]) for different purposes. Model I differentiates PC from benign cases. Models II, III, and a Gleason score model (model GS) predict sPC that is defined as National Comprehensive Cancer Network (NCCN)-categorized favorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model II), unfavorable-intermediate risk group or higher (Model III), and GS ≥7 PC (model GS), respectively. The metabolomic panels and predicting models were constructed using logistic regression and Akaike information criterion. Results: The best metabolomic panels from the HILIC column include 25, 27, 28 and 26 metabolites in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively, with area under the curve (AUC) values ranging between 0.82 and 0.91 in the training cohort and between 0.77 and 0.86 in the validation cohort. The combination of the metabolomic panels and five baseline clinical factors that include serum prostate-specific antigen, age, family history of PC, previously negative biopsy, and abnormal digital rectal examination results significantly increased AUCs (range 0.88–0.91). At 90% sensitivity (validation cohort), 33%, 34%, 41%, and 36% of unnecessary biopsies were avoided in Models I, II, III, and GS, respectively. The above results were successfully validated using LC-MS with the C18 column. Conclusions Urinary metabolomic profiles with baseline clinical factors may accurately predict sPC in men with elevated risk before biopsy.

Purpose: The diagnosis and management of cardiovascular diseases are important for pilots, as well as the assessment of workload. Heart rate variability (HRV) can be evaluated from electrocardiography (ECG) signals during flight phases to assess the activation of the autonomic nervous system. Methods: In this study, continuous ECG activity was recorded of one pilot who flied as a pilot flying during a 4-hour long round trip using wearable ECG machine and was analyzed with MATLAB (R2020b ver. 9.9, The Mathworks Inc.). Total flight was divided into five phases: preflight, take off, cruise, landing, and postflight. Results: Mean heart rate (HR) was lowest in the postflight phase (76 bpm), and highest in the landing phase (86 bpm). Landing phase showed the highest values in standard deviation of NN interval (59.3 ms), triangular index (11.7), and triangular interpolation of NN interval (195 ms), while the postflight phase had highest root mean square of successive difference (20.5 ms) and proportion of successive RR interval (3.4 ms). As for frequency-domain metrics, the landing phase had the highest lowfrequency/high-frequency ratio of 5.33. Among the non-linear HRV measures, the landing phase presented the lowest SD1/SD2 ratio (0.15). Conclusion We observed the relative increase of mean HR and change of HRV in the landing phase, indicating elevated sympathetic nervous tone. Further studies should be considered to evaluate specific changes of ECG signals in flight phases and confirm the clinical use of the MATLAB signal analysis tools.