Artificial intelligence in scientific medical writing: Legitimate and deceptive uses and ethical concerns.

The debate surrounding the integration of artificial intelligence (AI) into scientific writing has already attracted significant interest in medical and life sciences. While AI can undoubtedly expedite the process of manuscript creation and correction, it raises several criticisms. The crossover between AI and health sciences is relatively recent, but the use of AI tools among physicians and other scientists who work in the life sciences is growing very fast. Within this whirlwind, it is becoming essential to realize where we are heading and what the limits are, including an ethical perspective. Modern conversational AIs exhibit a context awareness that enables them to understand and remember any conversation beyond any predefined script. Even more impressively, they can learn and adapt as they engage with a growing volume of human language input. They all share neural networks as background mathematical models and differ from old chatbots for their use of a specific network architecture called transformer model [1]. Some of them exceed 100 terabytes (TB) (e.g., Bloom, LaMDA) or even 500 TB (e.g., Megatron-Turing NLG) of text data, the 4.0 version of ChatGPT (GPT-4) was trained with nearly 45 TB, but stays updated by the internet connection and may integrate with different plugins that enhance its functionality, making it multimodal.

Effective hands-on teaching strategy on participants' confidence in medical writing and publishing: A before-after study.

Proficiency in medical writing is crucial for disseminating reports of medical studies. The impact of workshops in this regard on participants' confidence is a subject of debate. We assessed the impact of a hands-on workshop on participants' confidence in medical writing. Participants of a 2-day "learning-by-doing" workshop held at McMaster University participated in this before-after study. We used a unique, reliable, and valid tool comprising two domains of confidence in medical writing and using English language before and after receiving the educational intervention. Of 25 participants, 21 completed the instrument before and after the workshop. Typical participants were female, and students in their 30s, who had not attended a prior workshop. The mean (95% CI) increase in the participants' confidence for domain 1 was 15.3 (10.5, 20.1), for domain 2 was 16.8 (9.8, 23.8), and for the total score was 32.1 (20.9, 43.2) (all P<0.001). Between-subgroup analyses showed the score increase was significantly higher in participants with less than 5 years of experience in medical research. The workshop had a positive impact on enhancing participants' confidence in writing skills, including using active verbs, crafting short sentences, summarizing main findings, and adhering to checklists like CONSORT. Hands-on medical writing workshops can boost participants' confidence in writing medical articles and using optimal English language. Targeting junior researchers and graduate students could result in a better outcome. Emphasizing the writing areas where participants achieved higher score changes might yield better outcomes for such workshops.

Assessment of confidence in medical writing: Development and validation of the first trustworthy measurement tool.

BACKGROUND: The popularity of medical writing workshops highlights the need for a standard measurement tool to assess the impact of such workshops on participants' confidence in: 1- writing a standard article and 2- using optimal English language. Because such an instrument is not yet available, we undertook this study to devise and evaluate the first measurement tool to assess such confidence. METHOD: We created an item pool of 50 items by searching Medline, Embase, and Clarivate Analytics to find related articles, using our prior experience, and approaching the key informants. We revised and edited the item pool, and redundant ones were excluded. Finally, the 36-item tool comprised two domains. We tested it in a group of workshop applicants for internal consistency and temporal reliability using Cronbach's α and Pearson correlations and for content and convergent validity using the content validity index and Pearson correlations. RESULTS: The participants had a mean age of 40.3 years, a female predominance (74.3%), and a majority of faculty members (51.4%). The internal consistency showed high reliability (> 0.95). Test-retest reliability showed very high correlations (r = 0.93). The CVI for domain 1 was 0.78, for domain 2 was 0.73, and for the entire instrument was 0.75. CONCLUSION: This unique, reliable, and valid measurement tool could accurately measure the level of confidence in writing a standard medical article and in using the appropriate English language for this purpose.

Letters generated by ChatGPT: Author who?

AIM: ChatGPT's role in medical writing is a topic of discussion. I experimented whether ChatGPT almost automatically generates Correspondence or Letter addressed to a "translated" article, and thereby wish to arouse discussion regarding ChatGPT use in medical writing. METHODS: I input an English article of mine into ChatGPT, tasking it with generating an English Disagreement Letter (Letter 1). Next, I tasked ChatGPT with translating the manuscript addressed to from English-French-Spanish-German. Then, I once again tasked ChatGPT with generating an English Disagreement Letter addressed to a German manuscript (triplicate translated manuscript) (Letter 2). RESULTS: Letters 1 and 2 are readable and reasonable, shooting the point that the author (myself) felt as the weakness of the article. Letters addressed to French (single translation) and to Spanish (double translation) and longer Letters (corresponding to Letters 1 and 2) are also readable, and thus stand. CONCLUSIONS: Solely based on this experiment, one may be able to write a letter even without understanding the meaning of the paper being addressed, let alone the language of the paper. Although this humble experiment does not conclude anything, I plea for a comprehensive discussion on the implications of these findings.

Major mistakes in scientific medical writing based on manuscripts' reviews.

INTRODUCTION: Peer review is a crucial process in ensuring the quality and accuracy of scientific research. It allows experts in the field to assess manuscripts submitted for publication and provide feedback to authors to improve their work. AIM: To describe mistakes encountered while peer reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. METHOD: This was a bibliometric study of research manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" and reviewed during 2022. The data collected included the type of the manuscripts and the number of reviews conducted per manuscript. The study also identified variables related to writing mistakes encountered during the peer review process. RESULTS: A total of 155 manuscripts (68% original articles) were peer reviewed and 245 reviews were delivered, by two reviewers. Out of 62 mistakes detected, 21% concerned the results section. In 60% of the manuscripts, the keywords used were not MeSH (Medical Subject Headings) terms. The introduction lacked in-text citations in 30% of the reviewed manuscripts, while the method section did not have a clear study framework (27%). The two major mistakes detected in the results section were the misuse of abbreviations in tables/figures, and the non-respect of the scientific nomenclature of tables/figures with respectively 39% and 19% of manuscripts. CONCLUSION: This study identified 62 mistakes while reviewing scientific manuscripts submitted to "La Tunisie Médicale" journal. Scholars can benefit from participation in scientific writing seminars and the use of a safety checklist for scientific medical writing to avoid basic mistakes.

Writing in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases. Dos and Don'ts!

Too many articles are still rejected by scientific medical journals due to lack of preparation of the manuscript and of knowledge of the modern editorial rules that govern scientific medical writing. Therefore, the editorial board of the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Heads & Neck Diseases summarized studies published by its members since 2020 in the columns of the scientific journal of the French Society of Otorhinolaryngology and the International Francophone Society of Otorhinolaryngology and data from the PubMed indexed literature dedicated to scientific medical writing in otolaryngology in the 21st century. The authors hope that this review, in the form of a list of "Dos and Don'ts", will provide authors with a practical guide facilitating publication of rigorous, reproducible and transparent scientific studies, in accordance with the movement toward better science that society as a whole has been fighting for since the beginning of this century.

Consejos para escribir un artículo científico. Parte 1: la práctica de la escritura / Tips for Writing a Scientific Paper: The Practice of Writing

La escritura de artículos académicos es una competencia necesaria para la difusión del conocimiento científico y para el desarrollo profesional de quienes trabajan en diversas disciplinas. Sin embargo, a pesar de su importancia, esta habilidad compleja no suele ser enseñada en forma sistemática, lo que puede operar como una barrera para que los investigadores comuniquen los resultados de sus trabajos. En esta primera entrega, sintetizamos los principales consejos que han brindado expertos en la temática, añadiendo algunos de nuestra experiencia personal que consideramos útiles para facilitar el proceso de la escritura académica y el desarrollo de esta competencia en un contexto colaborativo. En una segunda entrega profundizaremos respecto de la problemática de la escritura de las diferentes secciones de un artículo científico y se ofrecerán consejos para optimizarla y volverla lo más eficaz posible. (AU)

Academic writing is essential for scientific knowledge dissemination and the professional development of those working in various disciplines. Yet, however important this complex skill is, it is not usually taught systematically, a fact that can act as a barrier for researchers to communicate the results of their work. In this first part, we synthesize the main tips provided by experts in the field, adding some of our personal experiences that they consider relevant to facilitate the process of academic writing and develop this skill in a collaborative context. In a second article, we will go deeper into the problem of writing the different sections of a scientific article and offer advice on ways to optimize it and make it as effective as possible. (AU)

Curso de investigación en Atención Primaria de la Salud: experiencia sobre módulo de búsqueda bibliográfica y gestores de citas / Research course in Primary Health Care: experience with the bibliographic search module and citation managers

La Federación Argentina de Medicina Familiar y General apoyó el desarrollo, la difusión y la implementación de una propuesta educativa sobre investigación en atención primaria. Consiste en 4 módulos independientes, destinado para miembros interesados/as, con 2 encuentros virtuales teórico-prácticos, que favorecieran el intercambio de opiniones y experiencias entre colegas. El objetivo del primer módulo fue proporcionar conocimiento, brindar pautas y ofrecer herramientas para la búsqueda bibliográfica y el uso de gestores de citas. Se realizó difusión mediante sociedades y redes sociales. Se incluyó una evaluación individual, que diera cuenta de lectura complementaria y la aplicación práctica de los contenidos. Se llevó a cabo en Junio, con 39 preinscripto/as, mayoritariamente residentes. Hubo 24 participantes efectivos (61%), asistieron 17 y 20 personas respectivamente, y 11 (46%) obtuvieron el certificado de aprobación por responder la consigna en tiempo y forma. En cuanto a los/as asistentes, hubo predominio de mujeres (79%), provenientes de Asociación Metropolitana de Medicina Familiar (25%), Asociación Cordobesa de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria (16%), Asociación Misionera de Medicina General/Familiar y del Equipo de Salud (16%), Asociación Tucumana de Medicina Familiar, General y Comunitaria (12%), y otras minorías. Expresaron satisfacción, agradecimiento y reconocimiento por la actividad, destacando la buena predisposición de organizadores y equipo docente, la utilidad práctica de la temática, la evidente planificación, y el apoyo político-económico. Esta valiosa experiencia educativa (planteada como necesidad pendiente) resultó exitosa, ya que los/as participantes demostraron un alto nivel de interés, de asistencia de diferentes provincias, y de compromiso. Los certificados emitidos otorgan créditos educativos válidos para la recertificación (AU)

The Federación Argentina de Medicina Familiar y General supported the development, dissemination and implementation of an educational proposal on research in primary care. It consists of 4 independent modules, intended for interested members, with 2 virtual theoretical-practical meetings, which favored the exchange of opinions and experiences among colleagues. The objective of the first module was to provide knowledge, guidelines and tools for bibliographic search and the use of citation managers. Dissemination was carried out through societies and social networks. An individual evaluation was included, to account for complementary reading and the practical application of the contents. It was carried out in June, with 39 pre-registered participants, mostly residents. There were 24 effective participants (61%), 17 and 20 people attended respectively, and 11 (46%) obtained the certificate of approval for answering the instructions in due time and form. As for the attendees, there was a predominance of women (79%), coming from Asociación Metropolitana de Medicina Familiar (25%), Asociación Cordobesa de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria (16%), Asociación Misionera de Medicina General/Familiar y del Equipo de Salud (16%), Asociación Tucumana de Medicina Familiar, General y Comunitaria (12%), and other minorities. They expressed satisfaction, gratitude, and recognition for the activity, highlighting the good predisposition of the organizers and teaching team, the practical usefulness of the subject matter, the evident planning, and the political-economic support. This valuable educational experience (raised as a pending need) was successful since the participants showed a high level of interest, attendance from different provinces, and commitment. The certificates issued grant educational credits valid for recertification (AU)

An overview of the capabilities of ChatGPT for medical writing and its implications for academic integrity.

The artificial intelligence (AI) tool ChatGPT, which is based on a large language model (LLM), is gaining popularity in academic institutions, notably in the medical field. This article provides a brief overview of the capabilities of ChatGPT for medical writing and its implications for academic integrity. It provides a list of AI generative tools, common use of AI generative tools for medical writing, and provides a list of AI generative text detection tools. It also provides recommendations for policymakers, information professionals, and medical faculty for the constructive use of AI generative tools and related technology. It also highlights the role of health sciences librarians and educators in protecting students from generating text through ChatGPT in their academic work.