ABSTRACT
A integração de geradores de texto de inteligência artificial (IA) em relatórios científicos exige uma avaliação cuidadosa de considerações éticas específicas. Embora essas tecnologias de IA ofereçam suporte à geração de texto, abordar as implicações éticas é fundamental. Este editorial destaca a necessidade de uma abordagem ponderada e responsável, enfatizando o estabelecimento de diretrizes e melhores práticas por parte de pesquisadores e comunidades científicas. Esforços colaborativos entre desenvolvedores de IA, pesquisadores e comitês éticos podem garantir a integração perfeita das tecnologias de IA, ao mesmo tempo em que mantêm a integridade, qualidade e padrões éticos da divulgação científica. Este texto oferece um resumo abrangente considerações-chave ao se utilizar geradores de texto de inteligência artificial em relatórios científicos (AU)
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) text generators in scientific reports demands careful evaluation of specific ethical considerations. While these AI technologies offer text generation support, addressing the ethical implications is vital. This editorial highlights the need for a thoughtful and responsible approach, emphasizing the establishment of guidelines and best practices by researchers and scientific communities. Collaborative efforts between AI developers, researchers, and ethical committees can ensure the seamless integration of AI technologies while upholding the integrity, quality, and ethical standards of scientific reporting. This text comprehensively summarizes the key considerations to be followed when utilizing artificial intelligence text generators in scientific reports.(AU)
Subject(s)
Societies, Dental , Artificial Intelligence , EthicsABSTRACT
En octubre 2019 se envió una encuesta, diferenciada, por mail o Whatsapp a todos los socios SOPNIA (Sociedad de Psiquiatría y Neurología de la Infancia y Adolescencia), activos y no-activos, y a los neuropediatras y psiquiatras no-socios de nuestros registros, con el fin de saber cómo valoran a SOPNIA, que esperan de nuestra sociedad y cuales debiesen ser los objetivos a desarrollar a futuro. Para ello se confeccionó una encuesta por mail o Whatsapp a responder por Survey Monkey, que constaba de una parte de selección múltiple y otra sección de opinión. RESULTADO: se enviaron 662 encuestas (441 socios y 121 no-socios), respondiendo 149 socios y 60 no-socios. Tanto socios como no-socios hicieron una buena evaluación del funcionamiento de SOPNIA, con excelente evaluación de nuestro congreso anual. Ambos grupos tuvieron opiniones similares en cuanto a los objetivos a mejorar, en relación a mayor participación en políticas públicas y mayor relevancia como líderes de opinión en los temas que nos competen. Por otro lado, los profesionales no socios no han ingresado a la sociedad, mayoritariamente por lo engorroso del trámite de ingreso. CONCLUSIÓN: Para los encuestados, SOPNIA tiene un buen funcionamiento, pero falta fortalecer un mayor rol social, como líderes de opinión en materias de infancia y adolescencia, participando más en políticas públicas. Se reconoce una falencia en comunicar a sus socios todas las actividades que se realizan en este ámbito. Sopnia debe mejorar su página Web y hacer más fácil el ingreso de nuevos socios.
In October 2019, a differentiated survey was sent by email or WhatsApp to all SOPNIA (Sociedad de Psiquiatría y Neurología de la Infancia y Adolescencia) members, both active and non-active, and to non-member neuropediatricians and psychiatrists in our registries, in order to know how they value SOPNIA, what they expect from our society and what our future objectives should be. For this, a survey was sent by mail or WhatsApp to be answered by Survey Monkey, which consisted of a multiple-selection part and another opinion section. RESULTS:662 surveys were sent (441 members and 121 non-members), with responses received from 149 members and 60 non-members. Both members and non-members made a good evaluation of the operation of SOPNIA, with excellent evaluation of our annual congress. Both groups had similar opinions regarding the objectives to be improved, in relation to greater participation in public policies and greater relevance as opinion leaders on the issues that concern us. On the other hand, non-member professionals have not joined the society, mainly due to the cumbersome entry process. CONCLUSION: For those surveyed, SOPNIA has a good functioning, but it is necessary to strengthen a greater social role as opinion leaders in matters of childhood and adolescence, participating more in public policies. It is recognized that there is a weakness in communicating to its partners all the activities carried out in this area. SOPNIA must improve its website and make it easier for new members to enter.
Subject(s)
Societies, Medical , Child Psychiatry , Surveys and Questionnaires , Adolescent Psychiatry , Neurology , ChileABSTRACT
Medical journals value the quality of studies. Scientific events are spaces for discussion in the face of scientific advances, innovation and consensus. In them, space is opened for the presentation of clinical studies, translational studies, experience reports and videos, with the best-designed studies being selected and awarded. The lack of clear criteria allows for differences in assessments, making it difficult to place value on situations associated with research. In order to improve quality, it is necessary to evaluate ethics, the hierarchy of scientific evidence (methodology), the study design, the originality, the relevance, and the linearity of the material presented. The present study aims to discuss these points, presenting proposals to be used in the evaluation of clinical studies, translational studies, case reports and videos in scientific medical events.