Detection of ChatGPT fake science with the xFakeSci learning algorithm.

Generative AI tools exemplified by ChatGPT are becoming a new reality. This study is motivated by the premise that "AI generated content may exhibit a distinctive behavior that can be separated from scientific articles". In this study, we show how articles can be generated using means of prompt engineering for various diseases and conditions. We then show how we tested this premise in two phases and prove its validity. Subsequently, we introduce xFakeSci, a novel learning algorithm, that is capable of distinguishing ChatGPT-generated articles from publications produced by scientists. The algorithm is trained using network models driven from both sources. To mitigate overfitting issues, we incorporated a calibration step that is built upon data-driven heuristics, including proximity and ratios. Specifically, from a total of a 3952 fake articles for three different medical conditions, the algorithm was trained using only 100 articles, but calibrated using folds of 100 articles. As for the classification step, it was performed using 300 articles per condition. The actual label steps took place against an equal mix of 50 generated articles and 50 authentic PubMed abstracts. The testing also spanned publication periods from 2010 to 2024 and encompassed research on three distinct diseases: cancer, depression, and Alzheimer's. Further, we evaluated the accuracy of the xFakeSci algorithm against some of the classical data mining algorithms (e.g., Support Vector Machines, Regression, and Naive Bayes). The xFakeSci algorithm achieved F1 scores ranging from 80 to 94%, outperforming common data mining algorithms, which scored F1 values between 38 and 52%. We attribute the noticeable difference to the introduction of calibration and a proximity distance heuristic, which underscores this promising performance. Indeed, the prediction of fake science generated by ChatGPT presents a considerable challenge. Nonetheless, the introduction of the xFakeSci algorithm is a significant step on the way to combating fake science.

The landscape of biomedical research.

The number of publications in biomedicine and life sciences has grown so much that it is difficult to keep track of new scientific works and to have an overview of the evolution of the field as a whole. Here, we present a two-dimensional (2D) map of the entire corpus of biomedical literature, based on the abstract texts of 21 million English articles from the PubMed database. To embed the abstracts into 2D, we used the large language model PubMedBERT, combined with t-SNE tailored to handle samples of this size. We used our map to study the emergence of the COVID-19 literature, the evolution of the neuroscience discipline, the uptake of machine learning, the distribution of gender imbalance in academic authorship, and the distribution of retracted paper mill articles. Furthermore, we present an interactive website that allows easy exploration and will enable further insights and facilitate future research.

Factors influencing research productivity among Syrian medical professionals amidst conflict: a case-control study.

BACKGROUND: Medical research productivity is globally increasing, with a lagging progress in third-world countries due to significant challenges, including inadequate training and brain drain. Syria had been showing a slow upward trend until the war broke out and severely hindered academic growth and productivity. A deeper understanding of the factors influencing research productivity in this context are fundamental to guide educational policies and resource allocation. Previous cross-sectional studies that evaluated the perspectives of Syrian academics on the issue were limited by the small sample size of published healthcare workers, making it difficult to identify the factors that enabled them to pursue research. METHODS: To address this challenge, we employed a case-control design. We isolated published early-career Syrian healthcare workers and compared their characteristics and perceptions to unpublished matched controls. Authors in the fields of medicine, dentistry, and pharmacy affiliated with any Syrian University were identified through an extensive search of PubMed and Google Scholar.These authors were invited to complete a questionnaire that covered participants' research contributions, alongside their self-assessed knowledge, attitudes, and barriers towards research. The questionnaire was publicly published to recruit an equal sample of matching controls, with half consisting of unpublished researchers and the other half of participants without prior research contributions. RESULTS: Six-hundred-sixteen participants were recruited. Their knowledge, attitudes, and perceived barriers explained 46% and 34% of the variability in research involvement and publication, respectively (P < 0.001). Getting involved in and publishing research studies associated with higher research-related knowledge and attitudes (P < 0.001). Respondents' assessment of research-related barriers and their academic scores did not differ between cases and controls. Superior research-related knowledge and attitudes were associated with male gender, higher English competency, and better internet connectivity. Meanwhile, extracurricular training and mentors' support were associated with more positive research-related attitudes and less perceived barriers. CONCLUSIONS: Research productivity of medical professionals in Syria exhibits a positive correlation with their knowledge and favorable attitudes towards medical research. Noteworthy, the demographic variations are linked to disparities in research-related knowledge and motivation. In conclusion, these results suggest a potential avenue for enhancement through concentrated efforts on improving extracurricular training interventions and mentors' support.

The Peer Review Process: Past, Present, and Future.

The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of modern scientific paper publishing, underpinning essential quality control. First conceptualised in the 1700s, it is an iterative process that aims to elevate scientific literature to the highest standards whilst preventing publication of scientifically unsound, potentially misleading, and even plagiarised information. It is widely accepted that the peer review of scientific papers is an irreplaceable and fundamental aspect of the research process. However, the rapid growth of research and technology has led to a huge increase in the number of publications. This has led to increased pressure on the peer review system. There are several established peer review methodologies, ranging from single and double blind to open and transparent review, but their implementation across journals and research fields varies greatly. Some journals are testing entirely novel approaches (such as collaborative reviews), whilst others are piloting changes to established methods. Given the unprecedented growth in publication numbers, and the ensuing burden on journals, editors, and reviewers, it is imperative to improve the quality and efficiency of the peer review process. Herein we evaluate the peer review process, from its historical origins to current practice and future directions.

Primary outcomes, secondary outcomes, and their relevance to how many papers are published from a study: A primer for authors, reviewers, and editors.

In research, outcomes are often categorized as primary and secondary. The primary outcome is the most important one; it determines whether the study is considered 'successful' or not. Secondary outcomes are chosen because they provide supporting evidence for the results of the primary outcome or additional information about the subject being studied. For reasons that are explained in this paper, secondary outcomes should be cautiously interpreted. There are varying practices regarding publishing secondary outcomes. Some authors publish these separately, while others include them in the main publication. In some contexts, the former can lead to concerns about the quality and relevance of the data being published. In this article, we discuss primary and secondary outcomes, the importance and interpretation of secondary outcomes, and considerations for publishing multiple outcomes in separate papers. We also discuss the special case of secondary analyses and post hoc analyses and provide guidance on good publishing practices. Throughout the article, we use relevant examples to make these concepts easier to understand. While the article is primarily aimed at early career researchers, it offers insights that may be helpful to researchers, reviewers, and editors across all levels of expertise.

The role of artificial intelligence in scientific publishing: Perspectives from Hospital Pharmacy. / El rol de la inteligencia artificial en la publicación científica: perspectivas desde la farmacia hospitalaria.

The article examines the impact of artificial intelligence on scientific writing, with a particular focus on its application in hospital pharmacy. It analyzes artificial intelligence tools that enhance information retrieval, literature analysis, writing quality, and manuscript drafting. Chatbots like Consensus, along with platforms such as Scite and SciSpace, enable precise searches in scientific databases, providing evidence-based responses and references. SciSpace facilitates the generation of comparative tables and the formulation of queries regarding studies, while ResearchRabbit maps the scientific literature to identify trends. Tools like DeepL and ProWritingAid improve writing quality by correcting grammatical, stylistic, and plagiarism errors. A.R.I.A. enhances reference management, and Jenny AI assists in overcoming writer's block. Python libraries such as LangChain enable advanced semantic searches and the creation of agents. Despite their benefits, artificial intelligence raises ethical concerns including biases, misinformation, and plagiarism. The importance of responsible use and critical review by experts is emphasized. In hospital pharmacy, artificial intelligence can enhance efficiency and precision in research and scientific communication. Pharmacists can use these tools to stay updated, enhance the quality of their publications, optimize information management, and facilitate clinical decision-making. In conclusion, artificial intelligence is a powerful tool for hospital pharmacy, provided it is used responsibly and ethically.

A Systematic Review of Retracted Publications in Clinical Orthopaedic Research.

BACKGROUND: Retracted publications are an often-overlooked issue affecting the scientific community, and recent data confirms the overall number of retracted publications is rising. While this has previously been looked at within orthopaedic surgery, a contemporary understanding of retractions is required due to the rapid expansion in publications. Our study aimed to assess the retracted publications within clinical orthopaedic research to evaluate for characteristics and trends. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted on December 14, 2023, according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. There were 4 databases that were queried to identify retracted publications in clinical orthopaedics that assessed operative and nonoperative orthopaedic interventions (excluding basic science). Articles were independently screened by 2 reviewers; those meeting the inclusion criteria were evaluated for various characteristics, including reasons for retraction based on Committee on Publication Ethics guidelines. RESULTS: There were 233 studies that met the inclusion criteria and were retracted between January 1, 1990, and December 14, 2023. Clinical orthopaedics represented 1.18% of all retracted publications identified through PubMed over this period. There were 87 articles that were retracted in 2023, up from 17 in 2022 (a 412% increase). Retracted studies were published in journals with 2022 impact factors up to 9.3, with an average of 3.1 (SD [standard deviation] 1.9). A total of 39.5% of the retracted studies were published in orthopaedic journals, and 60.9% of the retracted articles were published in exclusively open-access journals. The mean time from electronic publication to retraction was 2.1 years (SD 2.2). Retracted articles have been cited up to 180 times (mean 8.6; SD 20). Reasons for retraction included misconduct (45.9%), plagiarism (11.6%), redundant publication (11.6%), unethical research (10.3%), error (9.4%), and others (10.7%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of retractions in the clinical orthopaedic literature is increasing. Clinical research is the basis for clinical practice guidelines, the gold standard for informing medical decision-making. Retractions may be one harbinger of lower-quality publications; researchers, institutions, and journals together play important roles in maintaining scientific integrity.

A comparison of the top 500 papers in Clinical Nutrition ranked by citation and Altmetric Attention Scores.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Citation scores (CS) have been traditionally used to measure the impact of scientific publications. Sourced from the Internet, Altmetric Attention Scores (AAS) are complementary metrics that assess how often publications are discussed and used globally. We compared by rank the top 500 papers by CS and AAS published in Clinical Nutrition with corresponding AAS and CS. METHODS: A search for all publications in Clinical Nutrition was performed on Dimensions (https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication) on 3rd April 2024. Outputs were ranked according to CS and then by AAS with the top 500 in each category selected. Scores, year and type of publication were recorded. Correlation was expressed as the Spearman's rank coefficient (ϱ). RESULTS: We identified 18,790 outputs. Within the top 500 publications ranked by CS, there was a significant weak positive correlation (ϱ = 0.235, P < 0.0001) between CS [median (IQR) 149 (116-223)] and AAS [7 (3-22)]. Ranked by AAS, there was a non-significant very weak positive correlation (ϱ = 0.072, P = 0.106) between AAS [55.5 (36-115)] and CS [42 (16.5-94.5)]. Trends remained similar when grouped by publication type. Guidelines, ranked by CS, had the highest CS and ranked by AAS, the highest CS and AAS. Publications per year, by year, ranked by CS, had a negatively skewed distribution peaking in 2012 and declined thereafter, but when ranked by AAS, had a moderately positive linear trend from 2001 to 2024 (ϱ = 0.513, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Correlation between CS and AAS was weak. Guidelines had the highest CS and AAS. CS are iterative taking years to mature while AAS are immediate.

The art and science of research methodology, biostatistics, manuscript writing, and publication ethics: An invigorating training for improving research aptitudes in southern Indian biomedical institutions.

The basic concepts of research are learned through systematic literature searches which form the basis of a research statement and research topic. Then the research question, hypothesis, aim, and objectives, as well as the experimental design, are developed. Given the context provided, the primary focus is on the importance of adequately training postgraduates and young research investigators in research methodology and project development. It is evident that there is a lack of proper training in these areas, and the rapid expansion of colleges in India exacerbates this issue. To address this, research students must receive comprehensive instruction in scientific research methodology, experimental design, statistics, scientific writing, publishing, and research ethics. Our team has been conducting workshops and symposia for more than two decades to improve the current teaching methods in these areas. Most recently, we organized a series of national and international workshops and seminars in multiple states across India to fortify the core concepts of scientific research for students and faculty members. This report highlights the key aspects of these workshops and the positive outcomes experienced by participants.

Influence of automated indexing in Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) selection for pharmacy practice journals.

BACKGROUND: The Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) thesaurus is the controlled vocabulary used to index articles in MEDLINE. MeSH were mainly manually selected until June 2022 when an automated algorithm, the Medical Text Indexer (MTI) automated was fully implemented. A selection of automated indexed articles is then reviewed (curated) by human indexers to ensure the quality of the process. OBJECTIVE: To describe the association of MEDLINE indexing methods (i.e., manual, automated, and automated + curated) on the MeSH assignment in pharmacy practice journals compared with medical journals. METHODS: Original research articles published between 2016 and 2023 in two groups of journals (i.e., the Big-five general medicine and three pharmacy practice journals) were selected from PubMed using journal-specific search strategies. Metadata of the articles, including MeSH terms and indexing method, was extracted. A list of pharmacy-specific MeSH terms had been compiled from previously published studies, and their presence in pharmacy practice journal records was investigated. Using bivariate and multivariate analyses, as well as effect size measures, the number of MeSH per article was compared between journal groups, geographic origin of the journal, and indexing method. RESULTS: A total of 8479 original research articles was retrieved: 6254 from the medical journals and 2225 from pharmacy practice journals. The number of articles indexed by the various methods was disproportionate; 77.8 % of medical and 50.5 % of pharmacy manually indexed. Among those indexed using the automated system, 51.1 % medical and 10.9 % pharmacy practice articles were then curated to ensure the indexing quality. Number of MeSH per article varied among the three indexing methods for medical and pharmacy journals, with 15.5 vs. 13.0 in manually indexed, 9.4 vs. 7.4 in automated indexed, and 12.1 vs. 7.8 in automated and then curated, respectively. Multivariate analysis showed significant effect of indexing method and journal group in the number of MeSH attributed, but not the geographical origin of the journal. CONCLUSIONS: Articles indexed using automated MTI have less MeSH than manually indexed articles. Articles published in pharmacy practice journals were indexed with fewer number of MeSH compared with general medical journal articles regardless of the indexing method used.

Neuroleptic malignant syndrome and serotonin syndrome: a comparative bibliometric analysis.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to analyze and map scientific literature on Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS) and Serotonin Syndrome (SS) from prestigious, internationally indexed journals. The objective was to identify key topics, impactful articles, prominent journals, research output, growth patterns, hotspots, and leading countries in the field, providing valuable insights for scholars, medical students, and international funding agencies. METHODS: A systematic search strategy was implemented in the PubMed MeSH database using specific keywords for NMS and SS. The search was conducted in the Scopus database, renowned for its extensive coverage of scholarly publications. Inclusion criteria comprised articles published from 1950 to December 31st, 2022, restricted to journal research and review articles written in English. Data were analyzed using Microsoft Excel for descriptive analysis, and VOSviewer was employed for bibliometric mapping. RESULTS: The search yielded 1150 articles on NMS and 587 on SS, with the majority being case reports. Growth patterns revealed a surge in NMS research between 1981 and 1991, while SS research increased notably between 1993 and 1997. Active countries and journals differed between NMS and SS, with psychiatry journals predominating for NMS and pharmacology/toxicology journals for SS. Authorship analysis indicated higher multi-authored articles for NMS. Top impactful articles focused on review articles and pathogenic mechanisms. Research hotspots included antipsychotics and catatonia for NMS, while SS highlighted drug interactions and specific medications like linezolid and tramadol. CONCLUSIONS: NMS and SS represent rare but life-threatening conditions, requiring detailed clinical and scientific understanding. Differential diagnosis and management necessitate caution in prescribing medications affecting central serotonin or dopamine systems, with awareness of potential drug interactions. International diagnostic tools and genetic screening tests may aid in safe diagnosis and prevention. Reporting rare cases and utilizing bibliometric analysis enhance knowledge dissemination and research exploration in the field of rare drug-induced medical conditions.

75 years' journey of malaria publications in English: what and where?

Malaria has inflicted serious morbidity and mortality across the globe. The major brunt of the disease has been on African, South-East Asian and South American countries. Proportionally, malaria has attracted global research priorities and this is evident from the number of publications related to malaria from across the globe, irrespective of its endemicity. However, formal and exhaustive analyses of these 'malaria publications' are rarely reported. The systematic review and secondary data analyses were done to retrieve information on what has been published on malaria, where is it published, and which countries are major contributors to malaria research.The study presents malaria publications from 1945 to 2020 retrieved using three databases: Web of Science™, Embase® and Scopus®. Exported data were examined to determine the number of publications over time, their subject areas, contributions from various countries/organizations, and top publishing journals.The total number of published records on malaria ranged from 90,282 to 112,698 (due to three different databases). Based on the number of publications, USA, UK, France, and India were identified as the top four countries. Malaria Journal, American Journal of Tropical Medicine & Hygiene, and PLoS One were the most preferred journals, whereas the University of London (Institutions other than LSHTM), the National Institute of Health, the London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, and the University of Oxford appeared to be the top contributing organization.A disproportional contribution to malaria research was observed with non-malaria endemic countries making the largest contribution. Databases differed in their output format and needed standardization to make the outputs comparable across databases.

Cancer research in Lebanon: Scope of the most recent publications of an academic institution (Review).

Cancer may be considered one of the most interesting areas of study, and although oncology research has grown markedly over the last decade, there is as yet no known cure for cancer. The objective of the present review is to examine various approaches to cancer research from a single institution, summarize their key conclusions and offer recommendations for future evaluations. The review examined 72 cancer-associated studies that were published within six years from 2017 to 2022. Published works in the subject fields of 'cancer' or 'oncology' and 'research' that were indexed in Scopus and Web of Science were retrieved and sorted according to article title, author names, author count, citation count and key words. After screening, a total of 28 in vitro/animal studies and 46 patient-associated published studies were obtained. A large proportion of these studies comprised literature reviews (20/72), while 20 studies were observational in nature. The 72 publications included 23 in which various types of cancer were examined, while the remaining studies focused on specific types of cancer, including lung, breast, colon and brain cancer. These studies aimed to investigate the incidence, prevalence, treatment and prevention mechanisms associated with cancer. Despite the existence of extensive cancer research, scientists seldom contemplate an ultimate cure for cancer. However, it is crucial to continuously pursue research on cancer prevention and treatment in order to enhance the effectiveness and minimize potential side effects of cancer therapy.

Publication Trends in Osteoporosis Treatment: A 20-Year Bibliometric Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis prevalence continues to escalate with the growth of the older adult population. In this study, we aimed to investigate the profile of osteoporosis treatment-related research articles published in the past 20 years using bibliometric analysis. METHODS: We analyzed all osteoporosis treatment-related articles published between 2001 and 2020 in the Web of Science (WoS) database using bibliometric methods. In the Title search section in WoS, we searched the documents using "osteoporosis treatment"-related keywords. We used the VOSviewer software to construct the bibliometric maps of keyword co-occurrences. RESULTS: Our search yielded 29,738 publications, 21,556 (72.5%) were original articles and 4,529 (15.2%) were review articles and review articles (4,529). We noticed a steady increase in the publication numbers from 2001 to 2020. The overall scientific publication number in WoS increased 3.5-fold, with the five most productive countries being the USA, China, Germany, the United Kingdom, and Japan. The largest contributor was the University of California system. The most productive journals were Osteoporosis International (1,679, 6.4%), Bone (832, 3.2%), and the Journal of Bone and Mineral Research (727, 2.8%). We observed increasing trends in the appearance of denosumab and teriparatide during the last two decades. In our keyword co-occurrence analysis, we constructed four keyword clusters using VOSviewer. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, we provided a gross overview of the visibility and productivity of research studies in osteoporosis treatment. Substantial changes have occurred in osteoporosis treatment over the last 20 years. The effector mechanism of anti-osteoporosis medications could be future hot spots in osteoporosis research. We believe that our study is a valuable guide for clinicians related to the global outputs of osteoporosis treatment.

Research designs of publications in radiography professional journals - A modified bibliometric analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence based practice relies on availability of research evidence mostly through peer-reviewed journal publications. No consensus currently exists on the best hierarchy of research evidence, often categorised by the adopted research designs. Analysing the prevalent research designs in radiography professional journals is one vital step in considering an evidence hierarchy specific to the radiography profession and this forms the aim of this study. METHODS: Bibliometric data of publications in three Radiography professional journals within a 10-year period were extracted. The Digital Object Identifier were used to locate papers on publishers' websites and obtain relevant data for analysis. Descriptive analysis using frequencies and percentages were used to represent data while Chi-square was used to analyse relationship between categorical variables. RESULTS: 1830 articles met the pre-set inclusion criteria. Quantitative descriptive studies were the most published design (26.6%) followed by non-RCT experimental studies (18.7%), while Randomised Controlled Trials (RCT) were the least published (1.0%). Systematic reviews (42.9%) showed the highest average percentage increase within the 10-year period, however RCTs showed no net increase. Single-centre studies predominated among experimental studies (RCT = 88.9%; Non-RCT = 95%). Author collaboration across all study designs was notable, with RCTs showing the most (100%). Quantitative and qualitative studies comparatively had similar number of citations when publication numbers were matched. Quantitative descriptive studies had the highest cumulative citations while RCTs had the least. CONCLUSION: There is a case to advocate for more study designs towards the peak of evidence hierarchies such as systematic reviews and RCT. Radiography research should be primarily designed to answer pertinent questions and improve the validity of the profession's evidence base. IMPLICATION FOR PRACTICE: The evidence presented can encourage the adoption of the research designs that enhances radiography profession's evidence base.

Retracted Publications in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery: What Mistakes Are Being Made?

Objectives: Retraction of publications is critical to maintaining scientific integrity, yet there is a lack of research on its occurrence in Otolaryngology. This study investigates characteristics, trends, and reasons for retraction of publications in otolaryngology journals. Study Design: Bibliometric analysis. Setting: PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science. Methods: A PubMed search for publications retracted during 1990 to 2022 from the top 60 journals with the subject "Otorhinolaryngology" using Scopus' CiteScore was performed. Publications were excluded if they were not in English, had missing information or did not have available abstracts or full-text. Publication and retraction dates, journal, country of origin, citation counts, journal impact factor (JIF), topic, and reason for retraction were recorded. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated to identify potential associations in the data. Results: Fifty-three publications were included. The 2020s had the highest number of retractions per year (4.33), with publications being retracted on average, 35 months after initial publication. The most common retracted topic and country of origin were head and neck (26.4%) and China (17.0%), respectively. Most publications were retracted because of plagiarism or duplicate publication (52.8%). Mean citation count was 6.92 ± 8.32 and mean JIF was 2.80 ± 1.35. Citation count was positively associated with months until retraction (r = .432, P = .001). There was no significant correlation between months to retraction and JIF (r = .022, P = .878). Conclusion: The most cited reasons for retraction were plagiarism and duplicate publication. An understanding of the reasons for retraction can better position journals to enforce more meticulous review standards and reduce such publications from being published. Level of Evidence: Level 4.

Global Trends and Hotspots in Pediatric Anesthetic Neurotoxicity Research: A Bibliometric Analysis From 2000 to 2023.

The impact of general anesthetics on brain function development is one of the top frontier issues of public concern. However, little bibliometric analysis has investigated this territory systematically. Our study aimed to visualize the publications between 2000 and 2023 to inspire the trends and hotspots in anesthetic neurodevelopmental toxicity research. Publications from 2000 to 2023 were collected from the Web of Science Core Collection. CiteSpace was utilized to plot and analyze the network maps of countries, institutions, authors, journals, and keywords associated with these publications. A total of 864 publications, consisting of 786 original articles and 78 reviews, were extracted from 2000 to 2023. The annual publications have increased constantly over the past two decades. The USA and the People's Republic of China were the leading driving forces in this field. Harvard University was the most productive institution. Zhang Y published the most related articles, and Jevtovic-Todorovic V was mostly cited in this field. The most prolific journal was Pediatric Anesthesia, and the most frequently co-cited journal was Anesthesiology. Keywords were divided into nine clusters: "apoptosis", "propofol", "developing brain", "cognitive dysfunction", "neuronal cell degeneration", "brain", "neuroinflammation", "local anesthesia", and "oxygen therapy". The strongest citation bursts in earlier years were "learning disability", "cell death", and "cognitive function". The emerging trends in the coming years were "awake regional anesthesia", "behavioral outcome", and "infancy general anesthesia compared to spinal anesthesia". We conclude that anesthetic-induced neurotoxicity has received growing attention in the past two decades. Our findings evaluated the present status and research trends in this area, which may provide help for exploring further potential prospects on hot topics and frontiers.

A Comparative Review of Imaging Journal Policies for Use of AI in Manuscript Generation.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Artificial intelligence (AI) technologies are rapidly evolving and offering new advances almost on a day-by-day basis, including various tools for manuscript generation and modification. On the other hand, these potentially time- and effort-saving solutions come with potential bias, factual error, and plagiarism risks. Some journals have started to update their author guidelines in reference to AI-generated or AI-assisted manuscripts. The purpose of this paper is to evaluate author guidelines for including AI use policies in radiology journals and compare scientometric data between journals with and without explicit AI use policies. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This cross-sectional study included 112 MEDLINE-indexed imaging journals and evaluated their author guidelines between 13 October 2023 and 16 October 2023. Journals were identified based on subject matter and association with a radiological society. The authors' guidelines and editorial policies were evaluated for the use of AI in manuscript preparation and specific AI-generated image policies. We assessed the existence of an AI usage policy among subspecialty imaging journals. The scientometric scores of journals with and without AI use policies were compared using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test. RESULTS: Among 112 MEDLINE-indexed radiology journals, 80 journals were affiliated with an imaging society, and 32 were not. 69 (61.6%) of 112 imaging journals had an AI usage policy, and 40 (57.9%) of 69 mentioned a specific policy about AI-generated figures. CiteScore (4.9 vs 4, p = 0.023), Source Normalized Impact per Paper (1.12 vs 0.83, p = 0.06), Scientific Journal Ranking (0.75 vs 0.54, p = 0.010) and Journal Citation Indicator (0.77 vs 0.62, p = 0.038) were significantly higher in journals with an AI policy. CONCLUSION: The majority of imaging journals provide guidelines for AI-generated content, but still, a substantial number of journals do not have AI usage policies or do not require disclosure for non-human-created manuscripts. Journals with an established AI policy had higher citation and impact scores.

Gender Parity Analysis of the Editorial Boards of Influential Dermatology Journals: Cross-Sectional Study.

This study underscores the persistent underrepresentation of women in academic dermatology leadership positions by examining the gender composition of editorial boards across top dermatology journals, emphasizing the urgent need for proactive strategies to promote diversity, equity, and inclusion.