Crafting Informative Titles in Medical Articles to Enhance the Comprehension of the Study Findings.

Original articles in the medical literature should have informative titles, also referred to as declarative titles. A nondeclarative title expresses the study's theme (topic) or, at most, the materials and methods used, whereas an informative title highlights the significance of the study findings (study's significance) and, at the very least, its results. A manuscript is typically organized to cover (i) the theme, (ii) materials and methods, (iii) results, and (iv) conclusion (study's significance). Consequently, a nondeclarative title typically encompasses only the (ii) stage, whereas an informative title extends to the (iii) or (iv) stages. This study underscores the importance of informative titles in medical papers and offers guidance for crafting titles that align with established paper writing fundamentals.

An Audience-friendly Medical Meeting: A Good Presentation and Chairpersonship.

The most important purpose of medical meetings is to share knowledge with the audience. Medical meetings should be audience-friendly. The presenter and chairperson play crucial roles in these meetings. We wish to put forward some personal proposals to make meetings audience-friendly. For the presenter, state the conclusion or significance first (in the case of case presentation), cite a fundamental article only, and do not skip reading in the summary slide. For the chairperson, be a timekeeper, stop the presentation when there are important mistakes, and choose a question that illustrates the significance of the study and thus interests the audience. All the meeting participants should understand this and support audience-friendly meetings.

Comparing letters written by humans and ChatGPT: A preliminary study.

OBJECTIVE: There are no criteria for what type of manuscript and to what extent ChatGPT use is permissible in writing manuscripts. I aimed to determine which, human or ChatGPT, writes more readable letters to the editor and whether ChatGPT writes letters mimicking a certain person. I aimed to provide hints as to what makes the difference between humans and ChatGPT. METHODS: This is a descriptive pilot study. I tasked ChatGPT (version 3.5) with generating a disagreement letter to my previous article (Letter 0). I wrote a letter involving three weaknesses of the addressed article (Letter 1). I provided ChatGPT with these three weaknesses and tasked it with generating a letter (Letter 2). Then, I supplied my authored letters and tasked ChatGPT with emulating my writing style (Letter 3). Eight professors evaluated the letters' readability and ChatGPT assessed which letter was more likely to be accepted. RESULTS: ChatGPT produced coherent letters (Letters 0 and 2). Professors rated the readability of Letters 1 and 2 similarly, finding Letter 3 less readable. ChatGPT determined that the human-authored Letter 1 had a slightly higher acceptance likelihood than the ChatGPT-generated Letter 2. Although ChatGPT identified personal writing styles, its mimicry did not enhance the letter's quality. CONCLUSION: This preliminary experiment indicates that human-written letters are perceived to be as readable as, or no less readable than, ChatGPT-generated ones. It suggests that human touch, with its inherent enthusiasm, is essential for effective letter writing. Further comprehensive investigations are warranted to ascertain the extent to which ChatGPT can be used in this domain.

A Checklist Confirming Whether a Manuscript for Submission Adheres to the Fundamentals of Academic Writing: A Proposal.

A manuscript written not adhering to the fundamentals of academic writing (so-called paper-writing rules) may be rejected before the significance of the study is recognized. Submitting authors, especially those with little experience, may neglect such fundamentals. A simple checklist, which would enable the authors to check whether a manuscript for submission adheres to such fundamentals, should appear at the beginning of the Author Guidelines of medical journal. This checklist may contribute to writing a manuscript following the fundamentals of academic writing, thereby preventing rejection based solely on the writing style.

Remaining as a Clinical Doctor in a Smaller Institute after Retirement: A Personal View.

Clinical doctors with overwhelming workloads at university or center hospitals may not have sufficient time to allocate for each patient or to consider each patient's personal condition. Retirement may be a good chance to make a new start by becoming a clinical doctor in a smaller institute. Becoming a clinical doctor in a smaller institute may give you satisfaction and happiness different from being a university clinical doctor. I believe that after retirement from a university or big hospital, older clinical doctors should continue to participate in clinical practice for as long as they wish. This may be one of the solutions for providing clinical doctors in the current and coming super-aged Japan.

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.