RESUMO
BACKGROUND: ChatGPT is an AI platform whose relevance in the peer review of scientific articles is steadily growing. Nonetheless, it has sparked debates over its potential biases and inaccuracies. This study aims to assess ChatGPT's ability to qualitatively emulate human reviewers in scientific research. METHODS: We included the first submitted version of the latest twenty original research articles published by the 3rd of July 2023, in a high-profile medical journal. Each article underwent evaluation by a minimum of three human reviewers during the initial review stage. Subsequently, three researchers with medical backgrounds and expertise in manuscript revision, independently and qualitatively assessed the agreement between the peer reviews generated by ChatGPT version GPT-4 and the comments provided by human reviewers for these articles. The level of agreement was categorized into complete, partial, none, or contradictory. RESULTS: 720 human reviewers' comments were assessed. There was a good agreement between the three assessors (Overall kappa >0.6). ChatGPT's comments demonstrated complete agreement in terms of quality and substance with 48 (6.7 %) human reviewers' comments, partially agreed with 92 (12.8 %), identifying issues necessitating further elaboration or recommending supplementary steps to address concerns, had no agreement with a significant 565 (78.5 %), and contradicted 15 (2.1 %). ChatGPT comments on methods had the lowest proportion of complete agreement (13 comments, 3.6 %), while general comments on the manuscript displayed the highest proportion of complete agreement (17 comments, 22.1 %). CONCLUSION: ChatGPT version GPT-4 has a limited ability to emulate human reviewers within the peer review process of scientific research.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Acetaminophen and 5-hydroxytryptamine-type-3 (5-HT3) receptor antagonists are administered as standard prophylaxes for postoperative pain, nausea, and vomiting. Preclinical studies however suggest that 5-HT3 antagonists may compromise acetaminophen's analgesic effect. This hospital registry study investigates whether 5-HT3 antagonists mitigate the analgesic effect of prophylactic acetaminophen in a perioperative setting. METHODS: This study included 55,016 adult patients undergoing general anesthesia for ambulatory procedures at a tertiary healthcare center in Massachusetts, United States of America, from 2015 to 2022. Using binary exposure variables and a comprehensive selection of pre-planned patient- and procedure-related covariates for confounder control, we investigated whether intraoperative 5-HT3 antagonists affected the association between pre- or intraoperative acetaminophen and postoperative opioid consumption, gauged by opioid dose in mg oral morphine equivalents (OME) administered in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU). A multivariable, zero-inflated negative binomial regression model was applied. RESULTS: 3,166 (5.8%) patients received only acetaminophen, 15,438 (28.1%) only 5-HT3 antagonists, 31,850 (57.9%) both drugs, and 4,562 (8.3%) neither drug. The median PACU opioid dose was 7.5 mg OME (interquartile range 7.5 to 14.3 mg OME) among 16,640/55,016 (30.3%) patients who received opioids and the average opioid dose was 3.2 mg OME across all patients (maximum cumulative dose: 20.4 mg OME). Acetaminophen administration was associated with a 5.5% (95%CI -9.6% to -1.4%;p=0.009; adjusted absolute difference -0.19 mg OME;95%CI -0.33 to -0.05;p=0.009) reduction in opioid consumption among patients who did not receive a 5-HT3 antagonist, while there was no effect in patients who received a 5-HT3 antagonist (adjusted absolute difference 0.00 mg OME; 95%CI -0.06 to 0.05;p=0.93,p-for-interaction=0.012). CONCLUSION: A dose-dependent association of pre- or intraoperative acetaminophen with decreased postoperative opioid consumption was not observed when 5-HT3 antagonists were co-administered, suggesting that physicians might consider reserving 5-HT3 antagonists as rescue medication for postoperative nausea or vomiting when acetaminophen is administered for pain prophylaxis.
RESUMO
INTRODUCTION: Perioperative opioid use has been associated with adverse clinical outcomes. Additionally, opioid disposal carries significant costs, due to the waste of pharmaceutical products and the time needed by skilled labor to report the waste. In this study, we aimed to estimate costs and predict factors of opioid-associated intraoperative product waste, as well as to evaluate whether higher intraoperative opioid doses are associated with increased risk of adverse postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We included 170,607 patients undergoing general anesthesia and receiving intraoperative fentanyl, hydromorphone, or morphine at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA, between January 2010 and June 2020. We estimated product waste-associated costs based on various opioid syringe sizes and determined predictors of opioid waste. Further, we evaluated whether higher opioid doses were associated with postoperative adverse events according to the severity-indexed, incident report-based medication error-reporting program classification. The primary outcome included post-extubation desaturation, postoperative nausea or vomiting, or postoperative somnolence or sedation. RESULTS: The use of the smallest syringe sizes (50 mcg for fentanyl, 0.2 mg for hydromorphone, and 2 mg for morphine) resulted in the lowest product waste-associated costs. The main predictor of opioid waste was the administration of more than one intraoperative opioid (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 7.64, 95% CI 7.40-7.89, P < 0.001). Intraoperative doses of fentanyl > 50-100 mcg (aOR = 1.17 [1.10-1.25], P < 0.001, adjusted risk difference [ARD] 2%) and > 100 mcg (aOR = 1.24 [1.16-1.33], P < 0.001, ARD 3%), hydromorphone > 1 mg (aOR = 1.13 [1.06-1.20], P < 0.001, ARD 2%), and morphine > 2-4 mg (aOR = 1.26 [1.02-1.56], P = 0.04, ARD 3%) and > 4 mg (aOR = 1.45 [1.18-1.77], P < 0.001, ARD 5%) were associated with higher risk of the primary outcome. CONCLUSION: Smaller syringe sizes of intraoperative opioids may help to reduce product waste and associated costs, as well postoperative adverse events through utilization of lower intraoperative opioid doses.
