ChatGPT-4 and Human Researchers Are Equal in Writing Scientific Introduction Sections: A Blinded, Randomized, Non-inferiority Controlled Study.

Background Natural language processing models are increasingly used in scientific research, and their ability to perform various tasks in the research process is rapidly advancing. This study aims to investigate whether Generative Pre-trained Transformer 4 (GPT-4) is equal to humans in writing introduction sections for scientific articles. Methods This randomized non-inferiority study was reported according to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials for non-inferiority trials and artificial intelligence (AI) guidelines. GPT-4 was instructed to synthesize 18 introduction sections based on the aim of previously published studies, and these sections were compared to the human-written introductions already published in a medical journal. Eight blinded assessors randomly evaluated the introduction sections using 1-10 Likert scales. Results There was no significant difference between GPT-4 and human introductions regarding publishability and content quality. GPT-4 had one point significantly better scores in readability, which was considered a non-relevant difference. The majority of assessors (59%) preferred GPT-4, while 33% preferred human-written introductions. Based on Lix and Flesch-Kincaid scores, GPT-4 introductions were 10 and two points higher, respectively, indicating that the sentences were longer and had longer words. Conclusion GPT-4 was found to be equal to humans in writing introductions regarding publishability, readability, and content quality. The majority of assessors preferred GPT-4 introductions and less than half could determine which were written by GPT-4 or humans. These findings suggest that GPT-4 can be a useful tool for writing introduction sections, and further studies should evaluate its ability to write other parts of scientific articles.

Celestial risk factors in groin hernia repair and random statistical association: a nationwide register-based study.

AIM: We aimed to investigate how celestial phenomena like zodiac signs, lunar phases, and Friday the 13th impacted the risk of reoperation after groin hernia repair. METHODS: We conducted a nationwide register-based study based on the Danish Hernia Database and Danish Patient Safety Authority's Online Register between 2000-2019. We included patients ≥18 years undergoing open Lichtenstein or laparoscopic groin hernia repair. The main outcomes were risk of reoperation after groin hernia repair in relation to patient and surgeon zodiac sign, lunar phase at the time of the repair, and Friday the 13th vs other Fridays. RESULTS: 151,901 groin hernias were included in the analysis of patient zodiac sign, and 25,075 groin hernias were included in the analysis of surgeon zodiac sign. Compared with the Sagittarius, there was a significantly higher risk of reoperation (HR [95% CI]) if the performing surgeon was born under the Capricorn (1.93 [1.16-3.12]); Pisces (1.68 [1.09-2.57]); Aries (1.61 [1.07-2.38]); Taurus (1.62 [1.04-2.54]); Cancer (2.21 [1.48-3.28]); or Virgo (1.71 [1.13-2.59]). Repairs performed under the waxing (1.23 [1.03-1.46]) and the new moon (1.54 [1.11-2.13]) had significantly higher risk of reoperation (HR [95% CI]) compared with the waning moon. Neither patient zodiac sign nor Friday the 13th affected risk of reoperation after groin hernia repair. CONCLUSIONS: Surgeons' zodiac sign and lunar phase significantly affected the risk of reoperation after groin hernia repair. Neither patients' zodiac sign nor Friday the 13th influenced on the risk of reoperation after groin hernia repair. This indicates why significant findings should be considered carefully to distinguish between random statistical association and cause-and-effect relations.

Chronic pain after reoperation of an inguinal hernia with Lichtenstein or laparoscopic repair following a primary Lichtenstein repair: A nationwide questionnaire study.

BACKGROUND: The aim was to assess chronic pain after two Lichtenstein repairs for inguinal hernias (Lichtenstein-Lichtenstein) compared with Lichtenstein followed by a laparoscopic reoperation (Lichtenstein-Laparoscopy). METHODS: In this cohort study, adults having an inguinal hernia reoperation were identified in a nationwide database. Lichtenstein-Lichtenstein was matched 1:3 with Lichtenstein-Laparoscopy and sent validated pain questionnaires. The primary outcome was difference in proportion of patients with chronic pain-related functional impairment. Secondary outcomes were differences in chronic pain prevalence and severity. RESULTS: In total, 196 patients having Lichtenstein-Lichtenstein and 777 patients having Lichtenstein-Laparoscopy were included. There was no difference in the primary outcome, 26% with pain in Lichtenstein-Lichtenstein versus 19% in Lichtenstein-Laparoscopy (p = 0.051). However, a few of the secondary outcomes favored Lichtenstein-Laparoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: A high proportion of patients in both groups had pain several years after the second repair. None of the analyses favored Lichtenstein-Lichtenstein, but a few of the secondary outcomes favored Lichtenstein-Laparoscopy.