Citations

The purpose of this study was to examine the validity of a Garmin device for estimating heart rate, energy expenditure, and step count during incremental treadmill exercise. Eighteen physically active males (n = 12; mean ± SD age = 22.8 ± 4.7 years; body mass = 83.8 ± 13.4 kg) and females (n = 6; 24.2 ± 5.6 years; 65.2 ± 9.6 kg) completed an incremental treadmill test with the Garmin Vivoactive 4 and criterion methods measuring heart rate, energy expenditure, and step count. Mean absolute percent error (MAPE) and Bland–Altman plots were used to assess accuracy. Acceptable accuracy was defined as MAPE < 5% for heart rate and <10% for energy expenditure and step count. MAPE (±SD) values were 13.0 (±10.1), 19.1 (±15.0), and 4.6 (±5.3)% for heart rate, energy expenditure, and step count, respectively. The Bland–Altman regression analyses illustrated proportional bias was present for heart rate (r = 0.591, p < 0.001) and step count (r = 0.516, p = 0.028), but not energy expenditure (r = 0.351, p = 0.153). These findings indicated that the Garmin Vivoactive 4 provided acceptable accuracy for step count but unacceptable accuracy for heart rate and energy expenditure during incremental treadmill exercise.

Coronary artery disease (CAD) remains the leading cause of cardiovascular morbidity and mortality worldwide, with plaque composition and morphology being as key determinants of disease progression and clinical outcomes. Accurate plaque characterization is essential for risk stratification and therapeutic decision-making, yet conventional image interpretation is limited by inter-observer variability and time-intensive workflows. Artificial intelligence (AI) models have emerged as a transformative tool for automated coronary plaque analysis across multiple imaging modalities. AI-driven models demonstrate high diagnostic accuracy for plaque detection, segmentation, quantification, and vulnerability assessment. Integration of AI-derived imaging biomarkers with clinical risk scores can further enhance prediction of major adverse cardiovascular events and supports personalized management. These advances position AI-enhanced imaging as a powerful adjunct for both invasive and non-invasive evaluation of CAD. Despite its promise, important barriers to widespread clinical adoption remain, including data heterogeneity, algorithmic bias, limited model transparency, insufficient prospective validation, regulatory challenges, and incomplete integration into clinical workflows. Addressing these challenges will be essential to ensure safe, generalizable, and cost-effective implementation of AI in routine cardiovascular care.

Background: Mu opioid receptors (MORs) in peripheral tissues mediate adverse effects of opioids that impair health-related quality of life (HRQoL) and may stimulate cancer progression via mitogenic signaling. Naloxegol, a peripherally acting MOR antagonist (PAMORA), is approved for opioid-induced constipation. Safety and efficacy of naloxegol have not been evaluated concurrently with systemic cancer therapy. Methods: We conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of naloxegol in patients with advanced lung adenocarcinoma starting first-line systemic therapy. Results: Only 50 patients were enrolled; the trial was terminated early due to slow accrual. Two of the three components of the feasibility primary endpoint were not met (accrual and PRO completion). At 6 months, FACT-L emotional well-being was better with naloxegol (p = 0.0113). There were trends towards better Trial Outcome Index (p = 0.0505) and physical well-being (p = 0.0628) with naloxegol. Bowel function favored naloxegol for constipation (p = 0.0223), rectal pain during defecation (p = 0.0075), and abdominal pain from constipation (p = 0.0113). Adverse event frequency and severity, PRO-CTCAE, urinary hesitancy, pain scores, and progression-free and overall survival were comparable between naloxegol and placebo. Conclusions: Naloxegol appears to be safe and tolerable, with a signal of improved HRQoL and previously unappreciated benefit for emotional well-being, without adverse clinical outcomes. Our findings should be confirmed in larger studies. ClinicalTrials.gov ID: NCT03087708.

Enhancing stability is a crucial factor in selecting bioactive compounds in most applications, while encapsulation techniques have proven to be a promising solution.

Abstract Medial meniscus extrusion, particularly in the setting of medial meniscus posterior root tears (MMPRTs), has become an area of interest in recent years due to the correlation between meniscus extrusion with inferior clinical outcomes, progression to osteoarthritis, and increased rate of conversion to total knee arthroplasty after MMPRT repair. This correlation led to the development of meniscus centralisations procedures that can be performed in addition to MMPRT repair and/or high tibial osteotomy. Although it was originally thought that medial meniscus extrusion was a consequence of MMPRTs, it has been reported that meniscus extrusion often precedes the development of MMPRTs, which suggests that there may be underlying meniscus pathology that predisposes to the development of both meniscus extrusion and MMPRTs. The purpose of this narrative review is to provide an overview of the anatomy, pathology, and surgical management of meniscus extrusion and MMPRTs, while identifying areas of future research to further elucidate the relationship meniscus extrusion and MMPRTs that may be necessary to improve outcomes after MMPRT repair. Level of Evidence Level V.

Abstract Objective Despite being safe and effective, surgery for pediatric epilepsy is underutilized. Social determinants of health (SDoH) are important to consider when examining this treatment gap. This study examined the potential systemic inequities at three different stages in the journey toward epilepsy surgery across the Pediatric Epilepsy Research Consortium (PERC). Methods Any youth in the PERC prospective surgery database (≤18 years) was eligible and included if sociodemographic factors were also available. We examined if there were differences in disparity factors in: (1) referral to Phase I evaluation, (2) offering of surgery, and (3) completion of surgery. Results Of 1309 patients, the majority were male (53%, p = .04), White (82.2%, p < .001), not Hispanic or Latino (84.3%, p < .001), and privately insured (56.3%, p < .001). Of the youth who were offered surgical treatment ( n = 1103, 84.3%), there were no significant differences in race/ethnicity or sex. Those with a structural lesion were more likely to be offered surgery, and historically marginalized youth were more likely to have a lesion. Of patients who completed surgery ( n = 927, 84.0%), White patients were 1.88 times (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.14–3.04) more likely than Black patients to complete surgery ( p = .01). Significance Youth who began surgery evaluation are not representative of the demographics of those with epilepsy in the United States, with greater representation of White, non‐Hispanic male individuals. In addition, youth who began surgery evaluation disproportionally have private insurance. At the next stage of offering surgery, there were no differences based on SDoH. However, there is evidence that underrepresented youth that were magnetic resonance negative were less likely to be referred for surgical workup and that Black youth were less likely to undergo surgery. Therefore, efforts to provide equitable opportunity for all youth with refractory epilepsy should be concentrated at the referral for surgery evaluation point of care; however, additional efforts are also needed at later stages.

Abstract Cancer occurs in ∼1 per 1000 pregnancies; thousands of patients may require radiation procedures for diagnosis and treatment each year in the United States alone. This rare but high-risk scenario, coupled with fear of radiation, has created ambiguity in the ideal management of pregnant patients. Without a comprehensive guide for the use of radiation in imaging and treatment for pregnant cancer patients, it is difficult for providers to offer optimal patient-centered care without introducing disparities. The goal of this paper is to provide guidance on the use of radiation for screening, diagnosis, staging, and treatment of cancer, while highlighting gaps in existing knowledge and guidelines. The intention is that physicians, medical physicists, and patients could use this document as a resource for shared decision-making, ensuring safe and effective practice. A team of physicians and medical physicists with expertise in imaging, radiotherapy, and maternal fetal medicine was assembled, along with a patient advocate and lawyer. Existing guidelines and recent literature were reviewed. Authors also drew from their experience where published guidance was lacking. The resulting document discusses best practice to guide use of radiation for cancer, as well as patient-centered care management and legal considerations. Overall, it is possible to safely and effectively deliver radiation to pregnant patients in numerous circumstances. Use of radiation or other modalities should be discussed through shared decision-making with the physician and patient, contextualizing the maternal and fetal risk from treatments. Healthcare providers should support wide access to reproductive healthcare to allow equitable, evidence-based, patient-centered healthcare.

ABSTRACT Rationale Before evidence‐based practice (EBP) was formally adopted, healthcare decisions relied on critical thinking and clinical judgment informed by disciplinary knowledge, theory, and research, but lacked full integration of patient values with clinical expertise. Sackett et al. redefined EBP as the integration of the best available evidence, clinical expertise, and patient values. This framework has been embraced by nursing and other healthcare disciplines, embedding EBP into education, clinical protocols, and quality improvement efforts. Despite widespread adoption, traditional conceptualizations prioritize empirical evidence above patient values, potentially undermining individualized care. Aims and Objectives This paper proposes a reconceptualization that places patient and client values—their why —at the center of EBP, inspired by Simon Sinek's Golden Circle model which emphasizes starting with purpose to influence behavior effectively. Prioritizing the patient's values before incorporating empirical evidence into a care plan ensures that care aligns with their personal goals and definitions of health, fostering therapeutic relationships and supporting meaningful behavior change. Methods A conceptual analysis was conducted using Simon Sinek's Golden Circle model as a guiding framework. This model emphasizes starting with purpose to influence behavior effectively. The analysis explores how integrating patient values first, followed by empirical evidence and clinical expertise, can operationalize person‐centered EBP. Results The reconceptualized framework positions patient values as the foundation of care planning. By aligning interventions with patients' personal goals and values first, clinicians can strengthen therapeutic relationships and support individualized care. Conclusion Effective nursing clinicians and leaders must embrace this patient‐first approach to truly operationalize person‐centered, evidence‐based care that respects the diverse needs and motivations of patients.