Implications of Microbiota and Immune System in Development and Progression of Metabolic Dysfunction-Associated Steatotic Liver Disease.

Metabolic dysfunction-associated steatotic liver disease (MASLD) is the most prevalent type of liver disease worldwide. The exact pathophysiology behind MASLD remains unclear; however, it is thought that a combination of factors or "hits" act as precipitants for disease onset and progression. Abundant evidence supports the roles of diet, genes, metabolic dysregulation, and the intestinal microbiome in influencing the accumulation of lipids in hepatocytes and subsequent progression to inflammation and fibrosis. Currently, there is no cure for MASLD, but lifestyle changes have been the prevailing cornerstones of management. Research is now focusing on the intestinal microbiome as a potential therapeutic target for MASLD, with the spotlight shifting to probiotics, antibiotics, and fecal microbiota transplantation. In this review, we provide an overview of how intestinal microbiota interact with the immune system to contribute to the pathogenesis of MASLD and metabolic dysfunction-associated steatohepatitis (MASH). We also summarize key microbial taxa implicated in the disease and discuss evidence supporting microbial-targeted therapies in its management.

Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures.

BACKGROUND: Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; (2) to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and (3) to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF. METHODS: Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency. RESULTS: For objective (1), 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective (2), 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective (3), 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF. CONCLUSION: JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties.

Evaluating Journal Impact Factor: a systematic survey of the pros and cons, and overview of alternative measures

Journal Impact Factor (JIF) has several intrinsic flaws, which highlight its inability to adequately measure citation distributions or indicate journal quality. Despite these flaws, JIF is still widely used within the academic community, resulting in the propagation of potentially misleading information. A critical review of the usefulness of JIF is needed including an overview of the literature to identify viable alternative metrics. The objectives of this study are: (1) to assess the usefulness of JIF by compiling and comparing its advantages and disadvantages; (2) to record the differential uses of JIF within research environments; and (3) to summarize and compare viable alternative measures to JIF. Methods: Three separate literature search strategies using MEDLINE and Web of Science were completed to address the three study objectives. Each search was completed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines. Results were compiled in tabular format and analyzed based on reporting frequency. Results: For objective (1), 84 studies were included in qualitative analysis. It was found that the recorded advantages of JIF were outweighed by disadvantages (18 disadvantages vs. 9 advantages). For objective (2), 653 records were included in a qualitative analysis. JIF was found to be most commonly used in journal ranking (n = 653, 100%) and calculation of scientific research productivity (n = 367, 56.2%). For objective (3), 65 works were included in qualitative analysis. These articles revealed 45 alternatives, which includes 18 alternatives that improve on highly reported disadvantages of JIF. Conclusion: JIF has many disadvantages and is applied beyond its original intent, leading to inaccurate information. Several metrics have been identified to improve on certain disadvantages of JIF. Integrated Impact Indicator (I3) shows great promise as an alternative to JIF. However, further scientometric analysis is needed to assess its properties.(AU)