Citations

We previously reported 5-year results of 57 patients with major acetabular defects (Paprosky 2B through 3B) who underwent full (31) or half (26) cup-cage reconstructions. This study provides an update with 8.8-year mean follow-up. The 10-year cumulative incidence of and survivorship free from revision, reoperation, and complications were estimated. The 10-year cumulative incidence of revision was 14% for full and 12% for half constructs. The incidence of revision for aseptic loosening was 4.3% and 4.6%, respectively. The 10-year survivorship free from aseptic loosening for patients with pelvic discontinuity was 88.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 70.6% to 100%) and 85.7% (95% CI, 61.8% to 100%), respectively; no patient without pelvic discontinuity required revision for aseptic loosening. The 10-year cumulative incidence of complications was 42% for all patients, including a 15% incidence of dislocation. Thus, both full and half cup-cage constructs provided durable fixation for complex acetabular bone loss at 10 years, although dislocation remains a concern. Level of Evidence: Therapeutic Level IV . See Instructions for Authors for a complete description of levels of evidence.

Background: Although skin cancer survivors have an increased risk of future malignancies, many are unaware of this and may not undergo preventative screening. Objective: To evaluate skin cancer survivors’ prevalence of breast, colorectal, cervical, and lung cancer screening. Methods: This is a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of The Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System database from 2017 to 2021 comparing skin cancer, other cancer, and non-cancer controls. Multivariate analysis compared screening rates, controlled for socioeconomic, chronic disease, and behavioral factors. Results: Compared to non-cancer controls, skin cancer survivors had higher odds of undergoing screening for breast (odds ratios [OR]: 1.35, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.20–1.51), colorectal (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.40–1.66), and cervical cancer (OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.12–1.56). Lung cancer screening rates were low and similar between skin cancer survivors and non-cancer individuals (OR 1.21, 95% CI 0.84–1.74). In a subset analysis of skin cancer survivors, those who had melanoma were less likely to be screened for breast and colorectal cancer. Limitations: This study is based on anonymous, national survey data, relying on patient recall of their health information. Conclusion: Skin cancer survivors undergo cancer screenings for breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer at higher rates compared to non-cancer controls. Melanoma survivors have lower rates of breast and colorectal screening compared to non-melanoma skin cancer survivors. Skin cancer survivors should be reminded of preventive cancer screening, particularly for lung cancer.

Background: Alopecia is a burgeoning area of patient interest and dermatologic investigation. Alopecia following a solid organ transplant has been relatively unexplored, despite the potential for significant symptomatic and psychological impact on patients posttransplant. Objective: We set out to study alopecia in patients following solid organ transplants, including presentation, etiology, evaluation, and management. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients who underwent solid organ transplant without a preceding history of alopecia at a single center between January 1, 2011, and December 31, 2020, to record new alopecia diagnoses posttransplant. Demographic data, transplant type, immunosuppressive regimen, and type of alopecia were all collected. Results: Between 2011 and 2020, a total of 3,732 patients underwent a solid organ transplant with a median age of 58 (range: 18-82) years. Sixty-two percent were men, 72.5% were White, and 8.4% identified as Hispanic or Latino. Out of 3,732 patients who underwent a solid organ transplant, 39 (1%) subsequently developed alopecia. Risk of alopecia was higher in females (hazard ratio [HR] = 12.26, P < .001), Hispanics (HR = 2.49, P = .043), and pancreas transplant patients (HR = 24.26, P < .001). Limitations: This is a retrospective review. Conclusion: In this study, alopecia was rare after a solid organ transplant, but further investigation is needed to assess for potential underdiagnosis of alopecia following transplant and the higher risks reported in certain populations.

At a time when there was no unifying hypothesis and no broadly effective treatments for heart failure with a preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), it was proposed that HFpEF represented a multitude of different disorders. Accordingly, characterization of phenotypic heterogeneity was envisioned as a means of identifying novel causal pathways that could lead to new treatments while simultaneously discerning patients who would selectively benefit from a specific therapy. However, efforts over the past decade to characterize phenotypic diversity in diverse and complex ways have not achieved these goals. Subgroup analyses of neutral HFpEF trials have failed to reliably identify responders to treatments. Neither proteomics nor unsupervised cluster analysis across multiple phenotypic domains has yielded reproducible results (even in the same dataset), elucidated novel mechanistic pathways for new drug development, or identified patients most likely to benefit from treatment. In marked contrast to these efforts to characterize phenotypic heterogeneity, large-scale trials in HFpEF enrolled patients using broad eligibility criteria, and they established the benefits of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors and mineralocorticoid receptor antagonists without evidence for subgroup effects. However, it is noteworthy that patients enrolled in recent large-scale HFpEF trials were characterized by general uniformity with respect to the presence of excess adiposity, with central obesity being a feature of the vast majority of enrolled participants. Of note, patients with obesity showed particularly large benefits when treated with effective drugs for HFpEF. These observations raise the possibility that, if these trials had permitted the participation of patients with class III obesity or with lower natriuretic peptide levels, the magnitude of the observed treatment effects might have been greater than originally reported. These findings are consistent with a central role for visceral adiposity (and the secretion of an altered suite of adipokines) in the pathogenesis of HFpEF. Therefore, because the field of HFpEF has a unifying hypothesis (applicable to the large majority of patients), enrolled a broad population of patients in large-scale trials without subgroup interactions, and has several broadly applicable effective treatments (as is true for heart failure with a reduced ejection fraction), the motivation to characterize phenotypic heterogeneity in HFpEF in complex ways may no longer be supported or needed.

Abstract Objective This study evaluated sequential multi-site fine-tuning of large language models (LLMs), simulating incremental deployment across institutions for extracting mobility functional status from unstructured clinical notes. Materials and Methods We assembled a corpus of 600 clinical notes from 3 institutions, yielding 3810 annotated note sections (1200 training; 2610 testing). Building upon our previously established LLM mobility extraction pipeline, which utilized optimized prompt engineering, we applied parameter-efficient low-rank adaptation (LoRA) fine-tuning. We evaluated sequential multi-site fine-tuning, where the model is trained locally and only the updated LoRA weights are transferred to the next site. We compared this against joint fine-tuning, which requires pooling all multi-site patient data centrally before training. Performance was measured by micro F1-scores for 2 distinct subtasks: mobility extraction and impairment classification. Results Sequential multi-site fine-tuning yielded comparable results to centralized joint fine-tuning for mobility extraction (F1, 0.861 vs 0.894) and impairment classification (F1, 0.912 vs 0.900). Both sequential and joint fine-tuning outperformed an untuned 70B model. Additionally, single-site LoRA models showed robust cross-site generalization. Discussion Sequential multi-site fine-tuning offers a resource-friendly approach to adapt LLMs to clinical environments. By retaining previously acquired knowledge without severe interference, this strategy allows for local fine-tuning at each institution without the need to pool or share sensitive patient data required for joint fine-tuning. Conclusion Sequential multi-site fine-tuning provides a viable solution for the scalable, incremental deployment of LLMs across institutions, showing promising generalizability for clinical information extraction from electronic health record narratives.

This Viewpoint proposes restoring science-based policymaking around vaccines and adding a new component—a transparent process for explicitly identifying and weighing the inherent values and trade-offs.

Background Lumbar facet arthropathy (LFA) is a degenerative, arthritic joint disorder and a common specific cause of axial low back pain and functional impairment. Currently, no disease-modifying therapies are available for symptomatic LFA. Mesenchymal stem/stromal cell (MSC)-based therapy represents an emerging regenerative treatment modality with the promise to target the underlying pathophysiology of LFA. Despite encouraging clinical evidence supporting the safety and efficacy of MSC therapy in other osteoarthritis, its therapeutic utility in LFA remains largely unexplored. We recently completed a prospective, single-arm, open-label phase I clinical trial that demonstrated a favourable safety profile and preliminary clinical benefit following intra-articular administration of bone marrow-derived MSCs (BMSCs) in patients with symptomatic LFA. Building on these findings, we present the protocol for CellKine II , a prospective, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over phase II clinical trial to evaluate the safety and preliminary efficacy of intra-articular delivery of allogeneic, culture-expanded BMSCs in patients with painful LFA. Methods and analysis This study is a single-centre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, cross-over phase II trial with a target accrual of 40 patients. Eligible patients will be randomly assigned in a 1:1 ratio to receive a single intra-articular injection of either Arm A: BMSC or Arm B: Placebo (dimethyl sulfoxide). At the 6-month follow-up, all patients will be unblinded. Patients initially randomised to Arm A will continue follow-up for up to 12 months. Patients initially randomised to Arm B may cross over to receive the BMSC treatment, followed by an additional 12 months of post-BMSC treatment follow-up, or they may continue observation for another 6 months without BMSC treatment. Overall, each patient will be followed up to 12 months after BMSC treatment. The primary endpoints are back pain, functional outcomes and adverse events at 6 months post-randomisation. Ethics and dissemination This study will be conducted in compliance with U.S. federal regulations and Mayo Clinic institutional research policies and procedures. The protocol has been approved by the Mayo Clinic Institutional Review Board (IRB) and the Data Safety Monitoring Board (IRB No. 21-013278). The results of this trial will be disseminated through publication in peer-reviewed journals and on ClinicalTrials.gov. Trial registration number NCT06001853 .