Assessing ChatGPT's ability to emulate human reviewers in scientific research: A descriptive and qualitative approach.

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.

Pfizer-BioNTech and Sinopharm: A Comparative Study on Post-Vaccination Antibody Titers.

COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) vaccines induce immunity through different mechanisms. The aim of this study is to compare the titers of specific antibodies in subjects vaccinated with either the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine or the Sinopharm vaccine. This prospective observational cohort included Jordanian adults vaccinated with two doses, 21 days apart, of either of the two aforementioned vaccines. Titers were collected 6 weeks after the administration of the second dose. Overall, 288 participants were included, of which 141 were administered the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, while 147 were administered the Sinopharm vaccine. Remarkably, 140 (99.3%) of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine recipients had positive IgG titers, while 126 (85.7%) of Sinopharm recipients had positive IgG (p < 0.001). The mean titer for IgG among Pfizer-BioNTech recipients was 515.5 ± 1143.5 BAU/mL, compared to 170.0 ± 230.0 BAU/mL among Sinopharm subjects (p < 0.001). Multivariable regression analysis showed that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine positively correlated with positive IgG titers (OR: 25.25; 95% CI: 3.25-196.15; p = 0.002), compared with a negative effect of cardiovascular diseases (OR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.11-0.99; p = 0.48) on IgG titers. In conclusion, fully vaccinated recipients of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine had superior quantitative efficiency compared to Sinopharm recipients. A booster dose is supported for Sinopharm recipients, or those with chronic immunosuppressive diseases.

Violence against physicians in Jordan: An analytical cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: High numbers of violence incidents against physicians are reported annually in both developing and developed countries. In Jordan, studies conducted on healthcare workers involved small number of physicians and showed higher percentages of violence exposure when compared to other investigations from the Middle East. This is a large study aiming to comprehensively analyze the phenomenon in the physicians' community to optimize future strategies countering it. METHODS: The study has a cross sectional, questionnaire-based design. It targeted 969 doctors from different types of healthcare Jordanian institutions in Amman, between May to July, 2019. The questionnaire was designed to evaluate properties of reported abuse cases in terms of abusers, timing, and type of abuse, in addition to the consequences of this abuse. RESULTS: Prevalence of exposure to violence in the last year among doctors was 63.1% (611 doctors). 423 (67.2%) of male doctors had an experience of being abused during the last 12 months, compared to 188 (55.3%) of females (p< 0.001). Governmental centers showed the highest prevalence. Among 356 doctors working in governmental medical centers, 268 (75.3%) reported being abused (p< 0.001), and they were more abused verbally (63.5%) and physically (10.4%) compared to other medical sectors (p <0.001). The mean score of how worried doctors are regarding violence at their workplace from 1 to 5 was 3.1 ± 1.3, and only 129 (13.3%) believed that they are protected by law. CONCLUSIONS: The study emphasized on the higher rate of violence against physicians in the governmental sector, in addition to the negative effect of abuse on their performance. Moreover, male physicians had higher incidence of workplace abuse. Therefore, strategies that ease and promote the real application of anti-violence policies should become our future target.

Preparedness of Frontline Doctors in Jordan Healthcare Facilities to COVID-19 Outbreak.

The number of COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease of 2019) cases in Jordan is rising rapidly. A serious threat to the healthcare system appears on the horizon. Our study aims to evaluate preparedness of Jordanian frontline doctors to the worsening scenario. It has a questionnaire-based cross-sectional structure. The questionnaire was designed to evaluate preparedness according to knowledge about virus transmission and protective measures, adherence to protection guidelines, and psychological impacts affecting doctors. Institutional factors affecting doctors' readiness like adopting approach protocols and making protection equipment available were investigated; 308 doctors from different healthcare facilities participated (response rate: 53.9%). Approximately 25% of doctors (n = 77) previously took care of COVID-19 patients, and 173 (56.2%) have institutional COVID-19 approach protocols. Only 57 doctors (18.5%) reported all PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) available. The self-reported score of preparedness to deal with COVID-19 patients was 4.9 ± 2.4. Doctors having institutional protocols for dealing with COVID-19 cases and those with sustained availability of PPE reported higher scores of preparedness (5.5 ± 2.3 and 6.2 ± 2.1 with p < 0.001, respectively). Correlations with knowledge score, adherence to PPE score, and psychological impacts were investigated. The study revealed multiple challenges and insufficiencies that can affect frontline doctors' preparedness. Policy makers are urged to take these findings into consideration and to act promptly.