Linking Cardiovascular Risk With Estradiol Level in Men.

Aim      To study the relationship between the cardiovascular risk and the level of estradiol in men of young and middle age. The main group included 71 patients with newly diagnosed hyperestrogenia (HE) (serum estradiol >41.2 pg/ ml). Using pseudorandomization, 68 men with normal estradiol level and age- and body weight index (BWI)-matched with the main group were included into the control group. Anthropometric data, bioimpedance variables, blood pressure (BP), and concentrations of estradiol, testosterone, glucose, and total cholesterol were analyzed in both groups.Results Patients of the main and control groups did not differ in age, BWI, and smoking status. Testosterone concentration was 10.18 nmol/l in the HE group and 12.18 nmol /l in the control group (p=0.006). Systolic BP was 142.0 mm Hg in the HE group and 135.2 mm Hg in the control group (p=0.011); diastolic BP was 90.3 mm Hg in the HE group and 86.2 mm Hg in the control group (p=0.008). Total cholesterol was 5.87 mmol/l in the HE group and 5.33 mmol/l in the control group (p=0.023). Blood glucose did not differ between the groups. The presence of HE in men 2.11 times (р=0.038) increased the probability of arterial hypertension. The intergroup difference by the SCORE scale did not reach statistical significance (р=0.172). BWI, waist and hip circumferences, and bioimpedance body composition parameters did not differ between the groups.Conclusion      In the studied cohort of young and middle-aged men, HE was an independent predictor for the presence of arterial hypertension. There were no significant intergroup differences in the total risk of cardiovascular diseases calculated with the SCORE scale.

Opinion research among Russian Physicians on the application of technologies using artificial intelligence in the field of medicine and health care.

BACKGROUND: To date, no opinion surveys has been conducted among Russian physicians to study their awareness about artificial intelligence. With a survey, we aimed to evaluate the attitudes of stakeholders to the usage of technologies employing AI in the field of medicine and healthcare and identify challenges and perspectives to introducing AI. METHODS: We conducted a 12-question online survey using Google Forms. The survey consisted of questions related to the recognition of AI and attitudes towards it, the direction of development of AI in medicine and the possible risks of using AI in medicine. RESULTS: 301 doctors took part in the survey. 107 (35.6%) responded that they are familiar with AI. The vast majority of participants considered AI useful in the medical field (85%). The advantage of AI was associated with the ability to analyze huge volumes of clinically relevant data in real time (79%). Respondents highlighted areas where AI would be most useful-organizational optimization (74%), biopharmaceutical research (67%), and disease diagnosis (52%). Among the possible problems when using AI, they noted the lack of flexibility and limited application on controversial issues (64% and 60% of respondents). 56% believe that AI decision making will be difficult if inadequate information is presented for analysis. A third of doctors fear that specialists with little experience took part in the development of AI, and 89% of respondents believe that doctors should participate in the development of AI for medicine and healthcare. Only 20 participants (6.6%) responded that they agree that AI can replace them at work. At the same time, 76% of respondents believe that in the future, doctors using AI will replace those who do not. CONCLUSIONS: Russian doctors are for AI in medicine. Most of the respondents believe that AI will not replace them in the future and will become a useful tool. First of all, for optimizing organizational processes, research and diagnostics of diseases. TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was approved by the Local Ethics Committee of the Lomonosov Moscow State University Medical Research and Education Center (IRB00010587).