Qualitative analysis of small animal veterinarian-perceived barriers to nutrition communication.

OBJECTIVE: Nutrition is important in preventing and managing disease. Veterinarians are an important source of nutrition information; however, nutrition communication between veterinarians and pet owners is relatively infrequent. The purpose of this study was to conduct a qualitative review of barriers to nutrition communication and possible solutions, reported by small animal veterinarians. SAMPLE: 18 veterinarians from Maryland, Michigan, Virginia, Washington DC, and West Virginia. METHODS: In a qualitative focus group study, 5 virtual focus groups using the Zoom platform were conducted from February 3, 2021, to April 2, 2021. Each focus group was audio recorded, and transcripts were created using Otter.ai software. Transcripts were analyzed in Atlas.ti qualitative data analysis software using a hybrid of inductive and deductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The 4 barriers to nutrition communication identified by veterinarians were as follows: (1) time, (2) misinformation and information overload, (3) pet owners' apprehension toward new information, and (4) veterinarians' confidence in nutrition knowledge and communication skills. Potential solutions include (1) improving communication and nutrition education, (2) improving and increasing access to client-friendly resources, and (3) empowering credentialed veterinary technicians and support staff to discuss nutrition. CLINICAL RELEVANCE: This study provides guidance for how to focus efforts to break down barriers to nutrition communication in small animal veterinary practice.

Systematic characterizations of text similarity in full text biomedical publications.

BACKGROUND: Computational methods have been used to find duplicate biomedical publications in MEDLINE. Full text articles are becoming increasingly available, yet the similarities among them have not been systematically studied. Here, we quantitatively investigated the full text similarity of biomedical publications in PubMed Central. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: 72,011 full text articles from PubMed Central (PMC) were parsed to generate three different datasets: full texts, sections, and paragraphs. Text similarity comparisons were performed on these datasets using the text similarity algorithm eTBLAST. We measured the frequency of similar text pairs and compared it among different datasets. We found that high abstract similarity can be used to predict high full text similarity with a specificity of 20.1% (95% CI [17.3%, 23.1%]) and sensitivity of 99.999%. Abstract similarity and full text similarity have a moderate correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient: -0.423) when the similarity ratio is above 0.4. Among pairs of articles in PMC, method sections are found to be the most repetitive (frequency of similar pairs, methods: 0.029, introduction: 0.0076, results: 0.0043). In contrast, among a set of manually verified duplicate articles, results are the most repetitive sections (frequency of similar pairs, results: 0.94, methods: 0.89, introduction: 0.82). Repetition of introduction and methods sections is more likely to be committed by the same authors (odds of a highly similar pair having at least one shared author, introduction: 2.31, methods: 1.83, results: 1.03). There is also significantly more similarity in pairs of review articles than in pairs containing one review and one nonreview paper (frequency of similar pairs: 0.0167 and 0.0023, respectively). CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: While quantifying abstract similarity is an effective approach for finding duplicate citations, a comprehensive full text analysis is necessary to uncover all potential duplicate citations in the scientific literature and is helpful when establishing ethical guidelines for scientific publications.

Identifying duplicate content using statistically improbable phrases.

MOTIVATION: Document similarity metrics such as PubMed's 'Find related articles' feature, which have been primarily used to identify studies with similar topics, can now also be used to detect duplicated or potentially plagiarized papers within literature reference databases. However, the CPU-intensive nature of document comparison has limited MEDLINE text similarity studies to the comparison of abstracts, which constitute only a small fraction of a publication's total text. Extending searches to include text archived by online search engines would drastically increase comparison ability. For large-scale studies, submitting short phrases encased in direct quotes to search engines for exact matches would be optimal for both individual queries and programmatic interfaces. We have derived a method of analyzing statistically improbable phrases (SIPs) for assistance in identifying duplicate content. RESULTS: When applied to MEDLINE citations, this method substantially improves upon previous algorithms in the detection of duplication citations, yielding a precision and recall of 78.9% (versus 50.3% for eTBLAST) and 99.6% (versus 99.8% for eTBLAST), respectively. AVAILABILITY: Similar citations identified by this work are freely accessible in the Déjà vu database, under the SIP discovery method category at http://dejavu.vbi.vt.edu/dejavu/.

Deja vu: a database of highly similar citations in the scientific literature.

In the scientific research community, plagiarism and covert multiple publications of the same data are considered unacceptable because they undermine the public confidence in the scientific integrity. Yet, little has been done to help authors and editors to identify highly similar citations, which sometimes may represent cases of unethical duplication. For this reason, we have made available Déjà vu, a publicly available database of highly similar Medline citations identified by the text similarity search engine eTBLAST. Following manual verification, highly similar citation pairs are classified into various categories ranging from duplicates with different authors to sanctioned duplicates. Déjà vu records also contain user-provided commentary and supporting information to substantiate each document's categorization. Déjà vu and eTBLAST are available to authors, editors, reviewers, ethicists and sociologists to study, intercept, annotate and deter questionable publication practices. These tools are part of a sustained effort to enhance the quality of Medline as 'the' biomedical corpus. The Déjà vu database is freely accessible at http://spore.swmed.edu/dejavu. The tool eTBLAST is also freely available at http://etblast.org.

Déjà vu--a study of duplicate citations in Medline.

MOTIVATION: Duplicate publication impacts the quality of the scientific corpus, has been difficult to detect, and studies this far have been limited in scope and size. Using text similarity searches, we were able to identify signatures of duplicate citations among a body of abstracts. RESULTS: A sample of 62,213 Medline citations was examined and a database of manually verified duplicate citations was created to study author publication behavior. We found that 0.04% of the citations with no shared authors were highly similar and are thus potential cases of plagiarism. 1.35% with shared authors were sufficiently similar to be considered a duplicate. Extrapolating, this would correspond to 3500 and 117,500 duplicate citations in total, respectively. AVAILABILITY: eTBLAST, an automated citation matching tool, and Déjà vu, the duplicate citation database, are freely available at http://invention.swmed.edu/ and http://spore.swmed.edu/dejavu