Diagnostic and prognostic value of triglyceride glucose index: a comprehensive evaluation of meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The present umbrella review aims to collate and summarize the findings from previous meta-analyses on the Triglyceride and Glucose (TyG) Index, providing insights to clinicians, researchers, and policymakers regarding the usefulness of this biomarker in various clinical settings. METHODS: A comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science up to April 14, 2024, without language restrictions. The AMSTAR2 checklist assessed the methodological quality of the included meta-analyses. Statistical analyses were performed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (CMA) software. RESULTS: A total of 32 studies were finally included. The results revealed significant associations between the TyG index and various health outcomes. For kidney outcomes, a high TyG index was significantly associated with an increased risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (CIN) (OR = 2.24, 95% CI: 1.82-2.77) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) (RR = 1.46, 95% CI: 1.32-1.63). High TyG index was significantly associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) (RR = 3.53, 95% CI: 2.74-4.54), gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) (OR = 2.41, 95% CI: 1.48-3.91), and diabetic retinopathy (DR) (OR = 2.34, 95% CI: 1.31-4.19). Regarding metabolic diseases, the TyG index was significantly higher in patients with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) (SMD = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.57-1.15), metabolic syndrome (MD = 0.83, 95% CI: 0.74-0.93), and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) (OR = 2.36, 95% CI: 1.88-2.97) compared to those without these conditions. In cerebrovascular diseases, a higher TyG index was significantly associated with an increased risk of dementia (OR = 1.14, 95% CI: 1.12-1.16), cognitive impairment (OR = 2.31, 95% CI: 1.38-3.86), and ischemic stroke (OR = 1.37, 95% CI: 1.22-1.54). For cardiovascular outcomes, the TyG index showed significant associations with an increased risk of heart failure (HF) (HR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.12-1.30), atrial fibrillation (AF) (SMD = 1.22, 95% CI: 0.57-1.87), and hypertension (HTN) (RR = 1.52, 95% CI: 1.25-1.85). CONCLUSION: The TyG index is a promising biomarker for screening and predicting various medical conditions, particularly those related to insulin resistance and metabolic disorders. However, the heterogeneity and methodological quality of the included studies suggest the need for further high-quality research to confirm these findings and refine the clinical utility of the TyG index.

The Ability of ChatGPT in Paraphrasing Texts and Reducing Plagiarism: A Descriptive Analysis.

Background: The introduction of ChatGPT by OpenAI has garnered significant attention. Among its capabilities, paraphrasing stands out. Objective: This study aims to investigate the satisfactory levels of plagiarism in the paraphrased text produced by this chatbot. Methods: Three texts of varying lengths were presented to ChatGPT. ChatGPT was then instructed to paraphrase the provided texts using five different prompts. In the subsequent stage of the study, the texts were divided into separate paragraphs, and ChatGPT was requested to paraphrase each paragraph individually. Lastly, in the third stage, ChatGPT was asked to paraphrase the texts it had previously generated. Results: The average plagiarism rate in the texts generated by ChatGPT was 45% (SD 10%). ChatGPT exhibited a substantial reduction in plagiarism for the provided texts (mean difference -0.51, 95% CI -0.54 to -0.48; P<.001). Furthermore, when comparing the second attempt with the initial attempt, a significant decrease in the plagiarism rate was observed (mean difference -0.06, 95% CI -0.08 to -0.03; P<.001). The number of paragraphs in the texts demonstrated a noteworthy association with the percentage of plagiarism, with texts consisting of a single paragraph exhibiting the lowest plagiarism rate (P<.001). Conclusions: Although ChatGPT demonstrates a notable reduction of plagiarism within texts, the existing levels of plagiarism remain relatively high. This underscores a crucial caution for researchers when incorporating this chatbot into their work.

Disability attitudes in healthcare scale: translation and cross-cultural validation into Arabic using various medical samples.

PURPOSE: Cross-cultural adaptation of the Disability Attitudes in Health Care Scale (DAHCS) into Arabic to assess the attitude toward people with disabilities. The objective of this study was to: firstly, translate and cross-culturally adapt the DAHCS into Arabic and secondly, assess its psychometric properties. Further, the goal was to investigate bachelor medical students' and doctors' attitude toward people with disabilities and highlight the need to establish the scale's reliability and validity by employing various samples. METHODS: A convenience sample of 201 medical students and 105 doctors was used. Arabic DAHCS factors were extracted and confirmed by Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), and Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). RESULTS: The findings revealed that medical professionals and students hold a positive attitude toward people with disabilities. The Mann-Whitney U and Kruskal-Wallis tests revealed no significant differences in the study's variables. EFA identified four factors. CFA showed a good fit to the model. Also, convergent and discriminant validity were achieved. Cronbach's Alpha and McDonald's Omega values for all factors were satisfactory. However, the study found a low value of Cronbach's Alpha and Omega for the fourth factor. CONCLUSIONS: The DAHCS was cross-culturally adapted into the Arabic language and its validity and reliability were achieved.

The Arabic version of the Disability Attitudes in Health Care Scale (DAHCS) demonstrated sufficient validity and reliability evidence to assess the Arabic-speaking healthcare students' and doctors' perceptions and attitudes towards people with disabilities.Those who educate medical students and provide rehabilitation training may find the DAHC useful.The DAHC is a specific scale to measure the attitude toward people with disabilities compared to other generic scales.