AI Shaming: The Silent Stigma among Academic Writers and Researchers.

AI shaming refers to the practice of criticizing or looking down on individuals or organizations for using AI to generate content or perform tasks. AI shaming has emerged as a recent phenomenon in academia. This paper examines the characteristics, causes, and effects of AI shaming on academic writers and researchers. AI shaming often involves dismissing the validity or authenticity of AI-assisted work, suggesting that using AI is deceitful, lazy, or less valuable than human-only efforts. The paper identifies various profiles of individuals who engage in AI shaming, including traditionalists, technophobes, and elitists, and explores their motivations. The effects of AI shaming are multifaceted, ranging from inhibited technology adoption and stifled innovation to increased stress among researchers and missed opportunities for efficiency. These consequences may hinder academic progress and limit the potential benefits of AI in research and scholarship. Despite these challenges, the paper argues that academic writers and researchers should not be ashamed of using AI when done responsibly and ethically. By embracing AI as a tool to augment human capabilities and by being transparent about its use, academic writers and researchers can lead the way in demonstrating responsible AI integration.

Clinical impact of Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding-Risk scores on clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention.

High bleeding risk (HBR), as defined by the Academic Research Consortium for High Bleeding Risk (ARC-HBR) criteria, has been recently reported to be associated with an increased risk of major bleeding events and cardiovascular events. We investigated the association between the ARC-HBR score and clinical outcomes in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD) who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We assessed 328 consecutive patients with stable CAD who underwent PCI between January 2017 and December 2020. We scored the ARC-HBR criteria by assigning 1 point to each major criterion and 0.5 points to each minor criterion. Patients were stratified into low (ARC-HBR score < 1), intermediate (1 ≤ ARC-HBR score < 2), and high (ARC-HBR score ≥ 2) bleeding-risk groups. The primary outcome measure was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE), defined as a composite of all-cause death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal stroke. We compared the discriminative abilities of the ARC-HBR score with the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Risk Score for Secondary Prevention (TRS2°P) and ARC-HBR score with Coronary Revascularization Demonstrating Outcome Study in Kyoto (CREDO-Kyoto) thrombotic risk score. The mean patient age was 70.1 ± 10.2 years (males, 76.8%). During the median follow-up period of 983 (618-1338) days, 44 patients developed MACE. Kaplan-Meier curves showed that a stepwise significant increase in the cumulative incidence of MACE as the ARC-HBR score increased (log-rank p < 0.001). In the time-dependent receiver-operating characteristic curve analysis for predicting MACE within 2 years, the area under the curve (AUC) of the ARC-HBR score was significantly higher than that of the TRS2°P (AUC: 0.825 vs. 0.725, p value for the difference = 0.023) and similar to that of CREDO-Kyoto thrombotic risk score (AUC: 0.825 vs. 0.813, p value for the difference = 0.627). Conclusions: The ARC-HBR score adequately stratified future risk of MACE in patients with stable CAD who underwent PCI. The ARC-HBR score showed a higher discriminative ability for predicting mid-term MACE than the TRS2°P.

Implementing a strategic plan for research.

Effective integration of research within healthcare organisations is recognised to improve outcomes. A research strategy within a hospital Trust in South West England was revised, following the launch of a national Chief Nursing Officer (CNO) strategy that promotes research engagement and activity. The aim was to develop, implement and evaluate this revised strategic plan for research. High-level engagement within the organisation was established and previous initiatives evaluated. A 6-year plan with 2-year targets was defined and evaluated at year end. The four pillars of the CNO strategy were central to the revised strategy, underpinned by digital innovation. Evaluation of the earlier strategy indicated excellent engagement with the Chief Nurse Research Fellow initiative and the Clinical Academic Network. The 'Embedding Research In Care' (ERIC) unit was reconfigured to an ERIC model, which aided question generation and project development. Year one objectives were achieved within the revised plan. Implementing a research strategy within an organisation requires a cultural shift and a long-term vision is required with measurable objectives. The team demonstrated significant progress through high-level leadership, mentoring and cross-professional collaboration.

Leaflet modification before transcatheter aortic valve implantation in patients at risk for coronary obstruction: the ShortCut study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: This trial sought to assess the safety and efficacy of ShortCut, the first dedicated leaflet modification device, prior to transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) in patients at risk for coronary artery obstruction. METHODS: This pivotal prospective study enrolled patients with failed bioprosthetic aortic valves scheduled to undergo TAVI and were at risk for coronary artery obstruction. The primary safety endpoint was procedure-related mortality or stroke at discharge or 7 days, and the primary efficacy endpoint was per-patient leaflet splitting success. Independent angiographic, echocardiographic, and computed tomography core laboratories assessed all images. Safety events were adjudicated by a clinical events committee and data safety monitoring board. RESULTS: Sixty eligible patients were treated (77.0 ± 9.6 years, 70% female, 96.7% failed surgical bioprosthetic valves, 63.3% single splitting and 36.7% dual splitting) at 22 clinical sites. Successful leaflet splitting was achieved in all (100%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 94-100.0%, p<0.001) patients. Procedure time, including imaging confirmation of leaflet splitting, was 30.6 ± 17.9 min. Freedom from the primary safety endpoint was achieved in 59 (98.3%; 95% CI [91.1-100%]) patients, with no mortality and one (1.7%) disabling stroke. At 30 days, freedom from coronary obstruction was 95% (95% CI 86.1-99.0%). Within 90 days, freedom from mortality was 95% (95% CI 86.1-99.0%]), without any cardiovascular deaths. CONCLUSIONS: Modification of failed bioprosthetic aortic valve leaflets using ShortCut was safe, achieved successful leaflet splitting in all patients, and was associated with favorable clinical outcomes in patients at risk for coronary obstruction undergoing TAVI.

The metrics maze in science: navigating academic evaluation without journalistic pressures.

In recent years a troubling trend has emerged in the medical research field, notably in reproductive medicine, manifesting an increased emphasis on quantity over quality in articles published. The pressure to collect copious publication records risks compromising meticulous expertise and impactful contributions. This tendency is exemplified by the rise of 'hyper-prolific researchers' publishing at an extraordinary rate (i.e. every 5 days), prompting a deeper analysis of the reasons underlying this behaviour. Prioritizing rapid publication over Galileo Galilei's systematic scientific principles may lead to a superficial approach driven by quantitative targets. Thus, the overreliance on metrics to facilitate academic careers has shifted the focus to numerical quantification rather than the real scientific contribution, raising concerns about the effectiveness of the evaluation systems. The Hamletian question is: are we scientist or journalist? Addressing these issues could necessitate a crucial re-evaluation of the assessment criteria, emphasizing a balance between quantity and quality to foster an academic environment that values meaningful contributions and innovation.

Upper extremity versus lower extremity for secondary access during transcatheter aortic valve implantation: rationale and design of the randomised TAVI XS trial.

BACKGROUND: During transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI), secondary access is required for angiographic guidance and temporary pacing. The most commonly used secondary access sites are the femoral artery (angiographic guidance) and the femoral vein (temporary pacing). An upper extremity approach using the radial artery and an upper arm vein instead of the lower extremity approach using the femoral artery and femoral vein may reduce clinically relevant secondary access site-related bleeding complications, but robust evidence is lacking. TRIAL DESIGN: The TAVI XS trial is a multicentre, randomised, open-label clinical trial with blinded evaluation of endpoints. A total of 238 patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI will be included. The primary endpoint is the incidence of clinically relevant bleeding (i.e. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2, 3 or 5 bleeding) of the randomised secondary access site (either diagnostic or pacemaker access, or both) within 30 days after TAVI. Secondary endpoints include time to mobilisation after TAVI, duration of hospitalisation, any BARC type 2, 3 or 5 bleeding, and early safety at 30 days according to Valve Academic Research Consortium­3 criteria. CONCLUSION: The TAVI XS trial is the first randomised trial comparing an upper extremity approach to a lower extremity approach with regard to clinically relevant secondary access site-related bleeding complications. The results of this trial will provide important insights into the safety and efficacy of an upper extremity approach in patients undergoing transfemoral TAVI.

Mobilizing community-driven health promotion through community granting programs: a rapid systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Effective health promotion responds to the unique needs of communities. Community granting programs that fund community-driven health promotion initiatives are a potential mechanism to meet those unique needs. While numerous community health-focused programs are available, the various strategies used by granting programs to foster engagement, administer grants and support awardees have not been systematically evaluated. This rapid systematic review explores the administration of community granting programs and how various program components impact process and population health outcomes. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted across three databases: Medline, SocINDEX, and Political Science Database. Single reviewers completed screening, consistent with a rapid review protocol. Studies describing or evaluating community granting programs for health or public health initiatives were included. Data regarding program characteristics were extracted and studies were evaluated for quality. A convergent integrated approach was used to analyze quantitative and qualitative findings. RESULTS: Thirty-five community granting programs, described in 36 studies, were included. Most were descriptive reports or qualitative studies conducted in the USA. Program support for grant awardees included technical assistance, workshops and training, program websites, and networking facilitation. While most programs reported on process outcomes, few reported on community or health outcomes; such outcomes were positive when reported. Programs reported that many funded projects were likely sustainable beyond program funding, due to the development of awardee skills, new partnerships, and securing additional funding. From the perspectives of program staff and awardees, facilitators included the technical assistance and workshops provided by the programs, networking amongst awardees, and the involvement of community members. Barriers included short timelines to develop proposals and allocate funds. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive overview of health-related community granting programs. Grant awardees benefit from technical assistance, workshops, and networking with other awardees. Project sustainability is enhanced by the development of new community partnerships and grant-writing training for awardees. Community granting programs can be a valuable strategy to drive community health, with several key elements that enhance community mobilization. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO #CRD42023399364.

Drug Cost Avoidance Resulting from Participation in Clinical Trials: A 10-Year Retrospective Analysis of Cancer Patients with Solid Tumors.

The objective of this single-center retrospective study was to describe the clinical characteristics of adult patients with solid tumors enrolled in cancer clinical trials over a 10-year period (2010-2019) and to assess drug cost avoidance (DCA) associated with sponsors' contributions. The sponsors' contribution to pharmaceutical expenditure was calculated according to the actual price (for each year) of pharmaceutical specialties that the Vall d'Hebron University Hospital (HUVH) would have had to bear in the absence of sponsorship. A total of 2930 clinical trials were conducted with 10,488 participants. There were 140 trials in 2010 and 459 in 2019 (228% increase). Clinical trials of high complexity phase I and basket trials accounted for 34.3% of all trials. There has been a large variation in the pattern of clinical research over the study period, whereas, in 2010, targeted therapy accounted for 79.4% of expenditure and cytotoxic drugs for 20.6%; in 2019, immunotherapy accounted for 68.4%, targeted therapy for 24.4%, and cytotoxic drugs for only 7.1%. A total of four hundred twenty-one different antineoplastic agents were used, the variability of which increased from forty-seven agents in 2010, with only seven of them accounting for 92.8% of the overall pharmaceutical expenditure) to three hundred seventeen different antineoplastic agents in 2019, with thirty-three of them accounting for 90.6% of the overall expenditure. The overall expenditure on antineoplastic drugs in clinical care patients not included in clinical trials was EUR 120,396,096. The total cost of antineoplastic drugs supplied by sponsors in a clinical trial setting was EUR 107,306,084, with a potential DCA of EUR 92,662,609. Overall, clinical trials provide not only the best context for the progress of clinical research and healthcare but also create opportunities for reducing cancer care costs.

Benchmarking Relevance for Hospital Design and Planning: An International Web-Based Survey.

OBJECTIVE: The study aims to investigate what design practitioners and healthcare facility managers deem as important benchmarking metrics worldwide, investigating country differences in benchmarking usage and which metrics are prioritized. BACKGROUND: Benchmarking is a regular practice in the healthcare sector, both for clinical and managerial aspects to compare, measure, and improve standardized processes. However, limited knowledge is available about benchmarking procedures in hospital planning, design, and construction. METHODS: A web-based survey was designed, revised, and pilot-tested in five countries; it was adjusted according to local experts' suggestions and submitted globally via SoSci multilingual platform to persons involved in hospital design, research, construction, and facility management. It was composed of closed questions on 5-point Likert-type scale ranking frequency or importance and open-ended questions divided into six sections. Two hundred and eighty full responses have been collected. Statistical analysis was performed via PowerBI and R-Studio, while qualitative analysis was performed via MAXQDA. RESULTS: The findings reported allow for both specific insights per each country or category as well as enabling general considerations of a practice that is becoming always more international with 30%-50% of respondents working in the international context. The evaluation of the survey highlights the most important benchmarks, among others. For example, for respondents from the top five countries (Sweden, Spain, Germany, Italy, and the United States), the most important metric for benchmark comparability is whether the project was new construction, new construction attached to an existing hospital, or interior renovation. Construction date, client type (public vs. private), and country of location were also generally rated as the most important metrics by respondents. Other metrics that were consistently rated as important globally included inpatient unit layout, walking distances, number of floors, and whether all patient rooms are private. Space-related metrics are considered very important elements in the design and planning of healthcare facilities worldwide. Regarding cost-related metrics, all countries consider the ratio construction cost per building gross area as the most important. CONCLUSIONS: Benchmarking emerges as a relevant tool for hospital design and planning as it can support efficiency, standardization, and confidence; currently, benchmarking is still underutilized due to the challenge of international comparison, access to data outside each specific company, and variation design metrics nationally. Benchmarking strategies should be further investigated to support knowledge exchange and to ensure reliable and comparable information globally.

Definitions of major bleeding for predicting mortality in critically ill adult patients who survived 24 hours while supported with peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation for cardiogenic shock: a comparative historical cohort study.

PURPOSE: The severity of bleeding events is heterogeneously defined during peripheral veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (pVA-ECMO). We studied three bleeding definitions in pVA-ECMO: the Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO)-serious bleeding, the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC), and the universal definition of postoperative bleeding (UPDB) classifications. METHODS: We included consecutive adult patients supported by pVA-ECMO for refractory cardiogenic shock admitted to Lille academic hospitals between January 2013 and December 2019. We assessed the association of bleeding definitions with the primary endpoint of 28-day all-cause mortality with the use of multivariate models accounting for time-dependent and competing variables. We compared models' performances using the Harrell's C-Index and the Akaike information criteria. RESULTS: Twenty-eight-day mortality occurred in 128/308 (42%) 308 patients. The ELSO-serious bleeding (hazard ratio [HR], 1.67; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09 to 2.56) and BARC ≥ type 2 (HR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.01 to 2.37) were associated with 28-day mortality (Harrell's C-index, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.74 for both). Predictors of ELSO-serious bleeding were postcardiotomy, body mass index, baseline platelets count, fibrinogen, and hemoglobin levels. CONCLUSION: Extracorporeal Life Support Organization-serious bleeding and BARC ≥ type 2 are relevant definitions of major bleeding regarding their association with mortality in critically ill patients who survived the first 24 hr while supported with pVA-ECMO for cardiogenic shock. STUDY REGISTRATION: CERAR (IRB 00010254-2022-050, Paris, France); first submitted on 18 April 2022.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: La gravité des événements hémorragiques est définie de manière hétérogène pendant une oxygénation par membrane extracorporelle veino-artérielle périphérique (ECMO-VA périphérique). Nous avons étudié trois définitions du saignement sous ECMO-VA périphérique : les classifications des saignements graves selon l'Extracorporeal Life Support Organization (ELSO), celles du Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) et la définition universelle du saignement postopératoire (UPDB). MéTHODE: Nous avons inclus des patient·es adultes pris·es en charge de manière consécutive par ECMO-VA périphérique à la suite d'un choc cardiogénique réfractaire et admis·es dans les centres hospitaliers universitaires de Lille entre janvier 2013 et décembre 2019. Nous avons évalué l'association des définitions du saignement avec le critère d'évaluation principal de mortalité toutes causes confondues à 28 jours à l'aide de modèles multivariés tenant compte des variables dépendantes du temps et concurrentes. Nous avons comparé les performances des modèles à l'aide de l'indice C de Harrell et du critère d'information d'Akaike. RéSULTATS: La mortalité à 28 jours est survenue chez 128/308 (42 %) patient·es. Le saignement grave selon l'ELSO (rapport de risque [RR], 1,67; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 1,09 à 2,56) et une classification BARC ≥ type 2 (RR, 1,55; IC 95 %, 1,01 à 2,37) étaient associés à une mortalité à 28 jours (indice C de Harrell, 0,69; IC 95 %, 0,63 à 0,74 pour les deux). Les prédicteurs d'hémorragie grave selon l'ELSO étaient la postcardiotomie, l'indice de masse corporelle, la numération plaquettaire initiale, le taux de fibrinogène et les taux d'hémoglobine. CONCLUSION: Les définitions du saignement grave de l'Extracorporeal Life Support Organization et une classification BARC ≥ type 2 sont des définitions pertinentes des saignements majeurs en ce qui touche à leur association avec la mortalité chez les personnes gravement malades qui ont survécu aux premières 24 heures alors qu'elles étaient prises en charge par ECMO-VA périphérique à la suite d'un choc cardiogénique. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: CERAR (IRB 00010254-2022-050, Paris, France); soumis pour la première fois le 18 avril 2022.

Ticagrelor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy with ticagrelor plus aspirin following percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with versus without diabetes mellitus: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is one among the major causes of mortality all round the globe. Several anti-platelet regimens have been proposed following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). In this analysis, we aimed to show the adverse clinical outcomes associated with ticagrelor monotherapy after a short course of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) with ticagrelor and aspirin following PCI in patients with versus without diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: Electronic databases were searched by four authors from September to November 2023. Cardiovascular outcomes and bleeding events were the endpoints of this analysis. Revman 5.4 software was used to conduct this meta-analysis. Risk ratio (RR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were used to represent the results which were generated. RESULTS: Three studies with a total number of 22,574 participants enrolled from years 2013 to 2019 were included in this analysis. Results of this analysis showed that DM was associated with significantly higher risks of major adverse cardiovascular events (RR: 1.73, 95% CI: 1.49 - 2.00; P = 0.00001), all-cause mortality (RR: 2.15, 95% CI: 1.73 - 2.66; P = 0.00001), cardiac death (RR: 2.82, 95% CI: 1.42 - 5.60; P = 0.003), stroke (RR: 1.78, 95% CI: 1.16 - 2.74; P = 0.009), myocardial infarction (RR: 1.63, 95% CI: 1.17 - 2.26; P = 0.004) and stent thrombosis (RR: 1.74, 95% CI: 1.03 - 2.94; P = 0.04) when compared to patients without DM. However, thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) defined minor and major bleedings, bleeding defined according to the academic research consortium (BARC) type 3c (RR: 1.31, 95% CI: 0.14 - 11.90; P = 0.81) and BARC type 2, 3 or 5 (RR: 1.17, 95% CI: 0.85 - 1.62; P = 0.34) were not significantly different. CONCLUSION: In patients who were treated with ticagrelor monotherapy after a short course of DAPT with ticagrelor and aspirin, DM was an independent risk factor for the significantly increased adverse cardiovascular outcomes. However, TIMI and BARC defined bleeding events were not significantly different in patients with versus without DM.

Rethinking heart failure clinical trials: the heart failure collaboratory.

The Heart Failure Collaboratory (HFC) is a consortium of stakeholders in the heart failure (HF) community that aims to improve the infrastructure of clinical research to promote development of novel therapies for patients. Since its launch in 2018, HFC has implemented several solutions to tackle obstacles in HF clinical research including training programs to increase the number of clinicians skilled in conducting clinical trials, novel study designs, and advocacy for a diverse and inclusive HF research ecosystem. We highlight some of the HFC successes since its establishment.

Lessons learned from implementing a diversity, equity, and inclusion curriculum for health research professionals at a large academic research institution.

Objective: Despite advances in incorporating diversity and structural competency into medical education curriculum, there is limited curriculum for public health research professionals. We developed and implemented a four-part diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) training series tailored for academic health research professionals to increase foundational knowledge of core diversity concepts and improve skills. Methods: We analyzed close- and open-ended attendee survey data to evaluate within- and between-session changes in DEI knowledge and perceived skills. Results: Over the four sessions, workshop attendance ranged from 45 to 82 attendees from our 250-person academic department and represented a mix of staff (64%), faculty (25%), and trainees (11%). Most identified as female (74%), 28% as a member of an underrepresented racial and ethnic minority (URM) group, and 17% as LGBTQI. During all four sessions, attendees increased their level of DEI knowledge, and within sessions two through four, attendees' perception of DEI skills increased. We observed increased situational DEI awareness as higher proportions of attendees noted disparities in mentoring and opportunities for advancement/promotion. An increase in a perceived lack of DEI in the workplace as a problem was observed; but only statistically significant among URM attendees. Discussion: Developing applied curricula yielded measurable improvements in knowledge and skills for a diverse health research department of faculty, staff, and students. Nesting this training within a more extensive program of departmental activities to improve climate and address systematic exclusion likely contributed to the series' success. Additional research is underway to understand the series' longer-term impact on applying skills for behavior change.

Knowledge, Perceptions and Attitude of Researchers Towards Using ChatGPT in Research.

INTRODUCTION: ChatGPT, a recently released chatbot from OpenAI, has found applications in various aspects of life, including academic research. This study investigated the knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes of researchers towards using ChatGPT and other chatbots in academic research. METHODS: A pre-designed, self-administered survey using Google Forms was employed to conduct the study. The questionnaire assessed participants' knowledge of ChatGPT and other chatbots, their awareness of current chatbot and artificial intelligence (AI) applications, and their attitudes towards ChatGPT and its potential research uses. RESULTS: Two hundred researchers participated in the survey. A majority were female (57.5%), and over two-thirds belonged to the medical field (68%). While 67% had heard of ChatGPT, only 11.5% had employed it in their research, primarily for rephrasing paragraphs and finding references. Interestingly, over one-third supported the notion of listing ChatGPT as an author in scientific publications. Concerns emerged regarding AI's potential to automate researcher tasks, particularly in language editing, statistics, and data analysis. Additionally, roughly half expressed ethical concerns about using AI applications in scientific research. CONCLUSION: The increasing use of chatbots in academic research necessitates thoughtful regulation that balances potential benefits with inherent limitations and potential risks. Chatbots should not be considered authors of scientific publications but rather assistants to researchers during manuscript preparation and review. Researchers should be equipped with proper training to utilize chatbots and other AI tools effectively and ethically.

A call to rethink the necessity of and challenges facing academic research organizations in the new era of drug innovation in China.

The objectives of drug R&D in China have shifted toward innovation and globalization, highlighting the ecological imperative to involve innovative partner-like academic research organizations (AROs). AROs are led by academic institutions and, when compared to contract research organizations (CROs), their strengths lie in promoting academic excellence, knowledge sharing, independence, collaborative networks and industry partnerships. Our desk-based analysis shows that although the service scope of Chinese AROs is similar to that of AROs in the US, they lack experience in broad service provision for innovative drugs, institution-institutional platforms and industry partnerships. We make several suggestions about how to achieve the synergy of academic institutions and industry-based organizations in drug innovation by using a ARO-CRO hybrid service model.

Examining the transition from print to electronic journals through the lens of sustainability.

This paper presents a comparative analysis of the sustainability aspects between print and electronic journals. A narrative synthesis is presented under the three key areas of environmental impact, social impact, and impact on research practices. Over the past decades, the gradual transition from print to electronic media has facilitated greater global access to academic research, reshaped research methodologies through innovative tools and systems, and arguably, reduced the ecological footprint of academia.

Outcomes of minimally invasive versus conventional sternotomy for redo mitral valve surgery according to Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

A minimally invasive approach through right mini-thoracotomy for redo mitral valve surgery may improve patients' outcomes compared to median sternotomy. This study aims to evaluate the outcomes of both procedures according to the Mitral Valve Academic Research Consortium (MVARC). This systematic review and meta-analysis were performed in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA). Literature searching was performed in several databases including PubMed, EBSCOhost, Scopus, and Proquest up to 28 February 2022. Meta-analysis using proportions or means was applied. A total of 13 retrospective cohort articles were included in this study. The incidence of in-hospital mortality (3% vs 9.2%, OR = 0.35; 95% CI: 0.21-0.58; P ≤ 0.0001), reintervention for bleeding (3.8% vs 5.9%, OR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.32-0.97; P = 0.04), and acute renal failure (5% vs 12%, OR = 0.29; 95% CI: 0.23-0.65; P = 0.0003) was significantly lower in mini-thoracotomy (MINI) group compared to median sternotomy (STER) group. The incidence of neurologic events (3.4% vs 5.5%, OR = 0.66; 95% CI: 0.4-1.08; P = 0.1) and arrhythmia (19.5% vs 25.5%, OR = 0.64; 95% CI: 0.38-1.09; P = 0.1) were also lower in MINI group compared to STER group but was not significant statistically. No significant differences were found in myocardial infarct (1% vs 1%, OR = 0.71; 95% CI: 0.06-8.85; P = 0.79) between MINI and STER group. A minimally invasive surgery through right mini-thoracotomy is associated with a lower incidence of in-hospital mortality, reintervention for bleeding, and acute renal failure. It is a safe alternative to median sternotomy for redo mitral valve surgery.

The Effect of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Academic Research Gender Disparities in Radiology.

RATIONALE AND OBJECTIVES: Gender disparities have long existed in radiology. The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted research activities worldwide and have impacted gender disparities across medical specialties. This study investigates the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on gender disparities in radiology academic authorship. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective observational study was conducted using data from 110 843 global and 23 977 US radiology articles. The gender of authors was determined using an automated gender inference tool. Descriptive statistics were applied to explore authorship changes overall globally, in the US as well as across countries and states. RESULTS: Female first-authorship increased globally from 16.9% to 17.6% (p < 0.001), and in the US, from 19.0% to 19.6% (p = 0.19) in the peri-COVID period. The combined female percentage increased from 19.7% to 20.0% globally (p = 0.021), and from 20.2% to 21.1% in the US (p = 0.006). Country-level analysis revealed significant increases in female authorship in Colombia, Denmark, Egypt, France, India, and Japan, while New Zealand demonstrated a decrease in female authorship. In the US, Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, Massachusetts, and Ohio experienced increases in female authorship, whereas South Carolina demonstrated a decrease in female authorship. CONCLUSION: In contrast with other medical fields, the study demonstrates that radiology experienced a slight increase in female authorship in radiology research globally and in the US during the COVID period. While the pandemic may have influenced these findings, further research is needed to establish regional causal relationships and identify best practices for promoting gender equity in radiology research.

For the Sake of Making Molecules.

The aim of this article, while reviewing part of my research activities, is to illustrate the somewhat chaotic way leading from one specific topic to another - from e.g. ferrocenyl ligands for asymmetric catalysis, to asymmetric fluorination, to reagents for perfluoroalkylation, just to mention some of the most fruitful ones. That the way meandering  through several areas of research in chemical synthesis can be described as chaotic is not primarily due to my inability to plan the work of my research group. In the contrary, it is argued that academic research, viewed as mean to educating and forming young researchers, should resist the temptation towards an increasing projectification, milestone mentality, the myth of societal relevance, and consciously aim for a more anarchical trait, much in the sense of Feyerabend's "anything goes".

Comparisons of Quality, Correctness, and Similarity Between ChatGPT-Generated and Human-Written Abstracts for Basic Research: Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: ChatGPT may act as a research assistant to help organize the direction of thinking and summarize research findings. However, few studies have examined the quality, similarity (abstracts being similar to the original one), and accuracy of the abstracts generated by ChatGPT when researchers provide full-text basic research papers. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the applicability of an artificial intelligence (AI) model in generating abstracts for basic preclinical research. METHODS: We selected 30 basic research papers from Nature, Genome Biology, and Biological Psychiatry. Excluding abstracts, we inputted the full text into ChatPDF, an application of a language model based on ChatGPT, and we prompted it to generate abstracts with the same style as used in the original papers. A total of 8 experts were invited to evaluate the quality of these abstracts (based on a Likert scale of 0-10) and identify which abstracts were generated by ChatPDF, using a blind approach. These abstracts were also evaluated for their similarity to the original abstracts and the accuracy of the AI content. RESULTS: The quality of ChatGPT-generated abstracts was lower than that of the actual abstracts (10-point Likert scale: mean 4.72, SD 2.09 vs mean 8.09, SD 1.03; P<.001). The difference in quality was significant in the unstructured format (mean difference -4.33; 95% CI -4.79 to -3.86; P<.001) but minimal in the 4-subheading structured format (mean difference -2.33; 95% CI -2.79 to -1.86). Among the 30 ChatGPT-generated abstracts, 3 showed wrong conclusions, and 10 were identified as AI content. The mean percentage of similarity between the original and the generated abstracts was not high (2.10%-4.40%). The blinded reviewers achieved a 93% (224/240) accuracy rate in guessing which abstracts were written using ChatGPT. CONCLUSIONS: Using ChatGPT to generate a scientific abstract may not lead to issues of similarity when using real full texts written by humans. However, the quality of the ChatGPT-generated abstracts was suboptimal, and their accuracy was not 100%.