Owing to rapidly changing global demographics, adult spinal deformity (ASD) now accounts for a significant proportion of the Global Burden of Disease. Sagittal imbalance caused by age-related degenerative changes leads to back pain, neurological deficits, and deformity, which negatively affect the health-related quality of life (HRQoL) of patients. Along with the recognized regional, global, and sagittal spinopelvic parameters, poor paraspinal muscle quality has recently been acknowledged as a key determinant of the clinical outcomes of ASD. Although the Scoliosis Research Society-Schwab ASD classification system incorporates the radiological factors related to HRQoL, it cannot accurately predict the mechanical complications. With the rapid advances in surgical techniques, many surgical options for ASD have been developed, ranging from minimally invasive surgery to osteotomies. Therefore, structured patient-specific management is important in surgical decision-making, selecting the proper surgical technique, and to prevent serious complications in patients with ASD. Moreover, utilizing the latest technologies such as robotic-assisted surgery and machine learning, should help in minimizing the surgical risks and complications in the future.

Evidence has suggested an increased risk of psychiatric manifestations following viral infections including coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). However, psychiatric adverse events (AEs) after COVID-19 vaccination, which were documented in case reports and case series, remain unclear. This study is aimed to investigate the psychiatric AEs after COVID-19 vaccination from a large population-based cohort in Seoul, South Korea. We recruited 50% of the Seoul-resident population randomly selected from the Korean National Health Insurance Service (KNHIS) claims database on 1, January, 2021. The included participants (n = 2,027,353) from the Korean National Health Insurance Service claims database were divided into two groups according to COVID-19 vaccination. The cumulative incidences per 10,000 of psychiatric AEs were assessed on one week, two weeks, one month, and three months after COVID-19 vaccination. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% Confidence interval (CIs) of psychiatric AEs were measured for the vaccinated population. The cumulative incidence of depression, anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, and somatoform disorders, sleep disorders, and sexual disorders at three months following COVID-19 vaccination were higher in the vaccination group than no vaccination group. However, schizophrenia and bipolar disorders showed lower cumulative incidence in the vaccination group than in the non-vaccinated group. Depression (HR [95% CI] = 1.683 [1.520–1.863]), anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, and somatoform disorders (HR [95% CI] = 1.439 [1.322–1.568]), and sleep disorders (HR [95% CI] = 1.934 [1.738–2.152]) showed increased risks after COVID-19 vaccination, whereas the risks of schizophrenia (HR [95% CI] = 0.231 [0.164–0.326]) and bipolar disorder (HR [95% CI] = 0.672 [0.470–0.962]). COVID-19 vaccination increased the risks of depression, anxiety, dissociative, stress-related, and somatoform disorders, and sleep disorders while reducing the risk of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. Therefore, special cautions are necessary for administering additional COVID-19 vaccinations to populations vulnerable to psychiatric AEs.

Postmenopausal osteoporosis arises from imbalanced osteoclast and osteoblast activity, and mounting evidence suggests a role for the osteoimmune system in bone homeostasis. Bisphosphonate (BP) is an antiresorptive agent, but its treatment failure rate can be as high as 40%. Here, we performed single-cell RNA sequencing on peripheral immune cells from carefully selected postmenopausal women: non-osteoporotic, osteoporosis improved after BP treatment, and BP-failed cases. We found an increase in myeloid cells in patients with osteoporosis (specifically, T cell receptor+ macrophages). Furthermore, lymphoid lineage cells varied significantly, notably elevated natural killer cells (NKs) in the BP-failed group. Moreover, we provide fruitful lists of biomarkers within the immune cells that exhibit condition-dependent differences. The existence of osteoporotic- and BP-failure-specific cellular information flows was revealed by cell–cell interaction analysis. These findings deepen our insight of the osteoporosis pathology enhancing comprehension of the role of immune heterogeneity in postmenopausal osteoporosis and BP treatment failure.

The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis is to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of previous studies on minimally invasive scoliosis surgery (MISS) in adolescents with idiopathic scoliosis (AIS). Some data on MISS in AIS compared with conventional open scoliosis surgery (COSS) are conflicting. A systematic literature search was conducted in Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Library, including studies reporting outcomes for MISS in AIS. The meta-analysis compared the operative, radiological, and clinical outcomes and complications between MISS and COSS in patients with AIS. Of the 208 records identified, 15 nonrandomized studies with 1,369 patients (reviews and case reports are excluded) were included in this systematic review and meta-analysis. The mean scale was 6.1, and eight of the 15 included studies showed satisfactory quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. For operative outcomes, MISS had significant benefits in terms of estimated blood loss (standard mean difference [SMD], -1.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.94 to -0.91) and hospitalization days (SMD, -2.99; 95% CI, -4.45 to -1.53) compared with COSS. However, COSS showed significantly favorable outcomes for operative times (SMD, 1.71; 95% CI, 0.92–2.51). No significant differences were observed in radiological outcomes, including Cobb’s angle of the main curve and thoracic kyphosis. For clinical outcomes, MISS showed significant benefits on the visual analog scale score (SMD, -0.91; 95% CI, -1.36 to -0.47). The overall complication rates of MISS were similar to those of COSS (SMD, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.61–1.52). MISS using the posterior approach provides equivalent radiological and clinical outcomes and complication rates compared with COSS. Considering the lower estimated blood loss, shorter hospitalization days, and longer operative times in MISS, COSS is still the mainstay of surgical treatment in AIS; however, MISS using the posterior approach is also one of the surgical options of choice in the case of moderate AIS.

Background: Due to recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), language model applications can generate logical text output that is difficult to distinguish from human writing. ChatGPT (OpenAI) and Bard (subsequently rebranded as “Gemini”; Google AI) were developed using distinct approaches, but little has been studied about the difference in their capability to generate the The use of AI to write scientific abstracts in the field of spine surgery is the center of much debate and controversy. Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the reproducibility of the structured abstracts generated by ChatGPT and Bard compared to human-written abstracts in the field of spine surgery. Methods: In total, 60 abstracts dealing with spine sections were randomly selected from 7 reputable journals and used as ChatGPT and Bard input statements to generate abstracts based on supplied paper titles. A total of 174 abstracts, divided into human-written abstracts, ChatGPT-generated abstracts, and Bard-generated abstracts, were evaluated for compliance with the structured format of journal guidelines and consistency of content. The likelihood of plagiarism and AI output was assessed using the iThenticate and ZeroGPT programs, respectively. A total of 8 reviewers in the spinal field evaluated 30 randomly extracted abstracts to determine whether they were produced by AI or human authors. Results: The proportion of abstracts that met journal formatting guidelines was greater among ChatGPT abstracts (34/60, 56.6%) compared with those generated by Bard (6/54, 11.1%; P<.001). However, a higher proportion of Bard abstracts (49/54, 90.7%) had word counts that met journal guidelines compared with ChatGPT abstracts (30/60, 50%; P<.001). The similarity index was significantly lower among ChatGPT-generated abstracts (20.7%) compared with Bard-generated abstracts (32.1%; P<.001). The AI-detection program predicted that 21.7% (13/60) of the human group, 63.3% (38/60) of the ChatGPT group, and 87% (47/54) of the Bard group were possibly generated by AI, with an area under the curve value of 0.863 (P<.001). The mean detection rate by human reviewers was 53.8% (SD 11.2%), achieving a sensitivity of 56.3% and a specificity of 48.4%. A total of 56.3% (63/112) of the actual human-written abstracts and 55.9% (62/128) of AI-generated abstracts were recognized as human-written and AI-generated by human reviewers, respectively. Conclusions: Both ChatGPT and Bard can be used to help write abstracts, but most AI-generated abstracts are currently considered unethical due to high plagiarism and AI-detection rates. ChatGPT-generated abstracts appear to be superior to Bard-generated abstracts in meeting journal formatting guidelines. Because humans are unable to accurately distinguish abstracts written by humans from those produced by AI programs, it is crucial to exercise special caution and examine the ethical boundaries of using AI programs, including ChatGPT and Bard.