Use of Artificial Intelligence Tools for Research by Medical Students: A Narrative Review.

With the advent of the era of digitalization, a new door has opened for the development of artificial intelligence (AI)-driven tools/algorithms that can help analyse the huge amount of data uploaded onto the cloud. AI-based tools/algorithms have created a niche in the field of research. AI has enabled researchers and practitioners to access and evaluate an enormous number of scientific papers more effectively. This can link similar studies from the past and highlight research gaps, thus accelerating the literature review, evidence generation, and knowledge discovery process. Medical students can obtain help from various AI-based solutions for literature organization and citations. These tools/algorithms facilitate secure information exchange, collaborative research efforts, and communication among multiple research centres. However, AI-driven research requires the guidance and supervision of human experts for better accuracy, coherence, and credibility of the content entering scientific databases. The key objective of this review is to discuss and evaluate various AI-based tools/algorithms and their key features that can assist medical students in medical research.

Decoding the Rejection Code: Understanding Why Articles Get Axed.

In the competitive arena of medical publishing, manuscript rejection remains a significant barrier to disseminating research findings. This editorial delves into the multifaceted nature of manuscript rejection, elucidating common reasons and proposing actionable strategies for authors to enhance their chances of acceptance. Key rejection factors include a mismatch with journal scope, lack of novelty, methodological flaws, inconclusive results, ethical issues, poor presentation, data inaccessibility, author misconduct, and plagiarism. Ethical lapses, such as lacking informed consent, or submissions fraught with grammatical errors, further doom manuscripts. In addressing these pitfalls, authors are advised to ensure content originality, methodological rigor, ethical compliance, and clear presentation. Aligning the manuscript with the journal's audience, scope, and editorial standards is crucial, as is professional conduct and responsiveness to feedback. Leveraging technological tools for citation management, grammar checking, and plagiarism detection can also significantly bolster manuscript quality. Ultimately, understanding and addressing common rejection reasons can empower authors to improve their submissions, contributing to the advancement of medical knowledge and their professional growth.

AI vs academia: Experimental study on AI text detectors' accuracy in behavioral health academic writing.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) language models continue to expand in both access and capability. As these models have evolved, the number of academic journals in medicine and healthcare which have explored policies regarding AI-generated text has increased. The implementation of such policies requires accurate AI detection tools. Inaccurate detectors risk unnecessary penalties for human authors and/or may compromise the effective enforcement of guidelines against AI-generated content. Yet, the accuracy of AI text detection tools in identifying human-written versus AI-generated content has been found to vary across published studies. This experimental study used a sample of behavioral health publications and found problematic false positive and false negative rates from both free and paid AI detection tools. The study assessed 100 research articles from 2016-2018 in behavioral health and psychiatry journals and 200 texts produced by AI chatbots (100 by "ChatGPT" and 100 by "Claude"). The free AI detector showed a median of 27.2% for the proportion of academic text identified as AI-generated, while commercial software Originality.AI demonstrated better performance but still had limitations, especially in detecting texts generated by Claude. These error rates raise doubts about relying on AI detectors to enforce strict policies around AI text generation in behavioral health publications.

Trends in authorship in the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology, 1981-2020.

BACKGROUND: The increase in authors per scientific article in many different medical and scientific disciplines has raised concerns over ethical authorship. Trends in authorship in dermatopathology are unknown. METHODS: Cross-sectional study of a random sample of 200 articles from the Journal of Cutaneous Pathology (1981-2020). RESULTS: The number of authors per article increased by an estimated 96% between 1981 and 2020 (2.7-5.3), while the relative citation ratio decreased by an estimated 56% during the same period (1.19-0.52). Higher author counts were not associated with higher relative citation ratios (p = 0.2349) or analytic study designs (p = 0.2987). Higher relative citation ratios were associated with analytic study designs (p = 0.0374). CONCLUSIONS: There has been significant growth in authorship credit at the journal without a corresponding increase in research impact or study rigor. Remedial measures to stem authorship inflation and promote more impactful studies may be necessary.

Scientific writing quality of theses in Medicine and Pharmacy at the University of Bamako (Mali).

AIM: To describe the scientific editorial quality of practice theses defended at the Faculties of Medicine and Pharmacy of Bamako (Mali), during the period 2016-2018. METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study conducted on practice theses in health science, defended between 2016 and 2018, and the electronic version of which was available at the libraries of the Faculties of Medicine and Pharmacy in Bamako. An adjusted STROBE grid was used to measure a scientific editorial conformity score for 18 iso-weighted items of the IMRaD structure (i.e. a total of 18 points). In this way, the scientific editorial quality of practice theses in health sciences was judged to be highly conform (14-18 points), fairly conform (9-13 points), poorly conform (5-8 points), or not conform (<5 points). An ordinal logistic regression model was used to identify determining factors independently associated with the scientific editorial quality of the health sciences practice thesis, with a significance level of 5%. RESULTS: A total of 534 practice theses in health sciences were included in this study, whose scientific editorial quality was judged to be highly or fairly conform (12.2%), poorly conform (43.1%) or not conform (44.8%). These standards scientific editorial conformity, which was higher in a "Medicine" thesis than in a "Pharmacy" thesis (ORa=2.45; IC95% [1.62-3.27], p<=0.05), was attributed to the supervisor's membership of a research structure (ORa=2.88; IC95% [1.6-3.2]; p<0.05). CONCLUSION: The research methodology profile of the practice health sciences thesis supervisor and the thesis section are associated with scientific editorial standard with the IMRaD.

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.

Nurses engaging with referral letters and discharge summaries: A qualitative study.

AIMS: To investigate the ways that nurses engage with referral letters and discharge summaries, and the qualities of these documents they find valuable for safe and effective practice. DESIGN: This study comprised a qualitative, case-study design within a constructivist paradigm using convenience sampling. METHODS: Interviews were conducted with nurses to investigate their practices relating to referral letters and discharge summaries. Data collection also involved nurses' examination and evaluation of a diverse range of 10 referral letters and discharge summaries from medical records at two Australian hospitals through focus-group sessions. The data were transcribed and analysed inductively. RESULTS: In all, 67 nurses participated in interviews or focus groups. Nurses indicated they used referral letters and discharge summaries to inform their work when caring for patients at different times throughout their hospitalisation. These documents assisted them with verbal handovers, to enable them to educate patients about their condition and treatment and to provide a high standard of care. The qualities of referral letters and discharge summaries that they most valued were language and communication, an awareness of audience and clinical knowledge, as well as balancing conciseness with comprehensiveness of information. CONCLUSION: Nurses relied on referral letters and discharge summaries to ensure safe and effective patient care. They used these documents to enhance their verbal handovers, contribute to patient care and to educate the patient about their condition and treatment. They identified several qualities of these documents that assisted them in maintaining patient safety including clarity and conciseness of information. IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PROFESSION AND PATIENT CARE: It is important that referral letters and discharge summaries are written clearly, concisely and comprehensively because nurses use them as key sources of evidence in planning and delivering care, and in communicating with other health professionals in relaying goals of care and implementing treatment plans. IMPACT: Nurses reported that they regularly used referral letters and discharge summaries as valuable sources of evidence throughout their patients' hospitalisation. The qualities of these documents which they most valued were language and communication styles, awareness of audience and clinical knowledge, as well as balancing conciseness with comprehensiveness of information. This research has important impact on the patient experience in relation to encouraging effective referral letter and discharge summary writing. REPORTING METHOD: We have adhered to the relevant EQUATOR guidelines through the SRQR reporting method. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: No patient or public contribution.

Evaluation of Author Instructions for Inclusive Language Guidance in Highly Cited English Language Medical Journals.

BACKGROUND: Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) are at the core of publication ethics, and language around DEI has been shown to affect patient outcomes. Inclusive language is an important piece of effective communication and is one way to demonstrate and foster a welcoming, respectful, and accessible environment. Non-inclusive terminology in research may represent implicit bias, which is not typically corrected through introspection; thus, a systematic approach is needed in scientific writing. The prevalence of inclusive language guidance in leading medical journals is currently unknown. OBJECTIVE: Investigators assess the prevalence and quality of inclusive language guidelines in author instructions in highly cited English language medical journals. DESIGN: A cross-sectional review of author instructions from a convenience sample of 100 highly cited medical journals was completed in January 2023. SUBJECTS: Each journal's author instructions were reviewed for presence of inclusive language guidelines for manuscript submissions. MAIN MEASURES: Guidelines that included specific examples of inclusive language were defined as "strong." Author instructions were also reviewed for the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) checklist, and each journal's publisher and impact factor (IF) were recorded. KEY RESULTS: The 100 journals reviewed had an IF range of 3.0-202.7 with a median IF = 19.5 (IQR 11.95, 38.68), and 28 unique publishers were represented. Inclusive language guidance was provided in 23% of medical journals reviewed. Of those, 20 (86.9%) provided strong guidance. Seven journals also recommended use of the SAGER checklist. CONCLUSION: Significant gaps still exist in ensuring use of inclusive language in medical journals.

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)

Reporting guidelines and a touch of critical appraisal.

The biomedical research process must follow certain quality criteria in its design and development to ensure that the results are credible and reliable. Once completed, the time comes to write an article for publication. The article must present in sufficient detail, and in a clear and transparent manner, all the information on the research work that has been carried out. In this way, readers, after a critical reading of the published content, will be able to judge the validity and relevance of the study and, if they so wish, make use of the findings. In order to improve the description of the research process for publication, a series of guidelines have been developed which, in a simple and structured way, guide authors in the preparation of a manuscript. They are presented in the form of a list, flowchart, or structured text, and are an invaluable aid when writing an article. This article presents the reporting guidelines for the most common designs along with the corresponding checklists.

Plagiarism: A Bird's Eye View.

Plagiarism is among the prevalent misconducts reported in scientific writing and common causes of article retraction in scholarly journals. Plagiarism of idea is not acceptable by any means. However, plagiarism of text is a matter of debate from culture to culture. Herein, I wish to reflect on a bird's eye view of plagiarism, particularly plagiarism of text, in scientific writing. Text similarity score as a signal of text plagiarism is not an appropriate index and an expert should examine the similarity with enough scrutiny. Text recycling in certain instances might be acceptable in scientific writing provided that the authors could correctly construe the text piece they borrowed. With introduction of artificial intelligence-based units, which help authors to write their manuscripts, the incidence of text plagiarism might increase. However, after a while, when a universal artificial unit takes over, no one will need to worry about text plagiarism as the incentive to commit plagiarism will be abolished, I believe.

Guías para la elaboración de manuscritos y unas pinceladas de lectura crítica / Reporting guidelines and a touch of critical appraisal

El proceso de investigación biomédica debe seguir unos criterios de calidad en su diseño y elaboración que garanticen que los resultados son creíbles y fiables. Una vez finalizado, llega el momento de escribir un artículo para su publicación. Este debe presentar con suficiente detalle, y de forma clara y transparente, toda la información del trabajo de investigación realizado. De esta forma, los lectores, tras una lectura crítica de lo publicado, podrán juzgar la validez y la relevancia del estudio, y si lo consideran, utilizar los hallazgos. Con el objetivo de mejorar la descripción del proceso de investigación para su publicación, se han desarrollado una serie de guías que, de forma sencilla y estructurada, orientan a los autores a la hora de elaborar un manuscrito. Se presentan en forma de lista, diagrama de flujo, o texto estructurado, y son una ayuda inestimable a la hora de escribir un artículo. Este artículo presenta las guías de elaboración de manuscritos de los diseños más habituales, con sus listas de verificación.(AU)

The biomedical research process must follow certain quality criteria in its design and development to ensure that the results are credible and reliable. Once completed, the time comes to write an article for publication. The article must present in sufficient detail, and in a clear and transparent manner, all the information on the research work that has been carried out. In this way, readers, after a critical reading of the published content, will be able to judge the validity and relevance of the study and, if they so wish, make use of the findings. In order to improve the description of the research process for publication, a series of guidelines have been developed which, in a simple and structured way, guide authors in the preparation of a manuscript. They are presented in the form of a list, flowchart, or structured text, and are an invaluable aid when writing an article. This article presents the reporting guidelines for the most common designs along with the corresponding checklists.(AU)

REPCAN: Guideline for REporting Population-based CANcer Registry Data.

Background: The objective of this study was to develop a guideline on how to report result of a population-based cancer registry. Methods: The guideline's development involved a core working committee and a scientific committee comprising experts from diverse domains. The process comprised three steps: 1) a comprehensive review of existing tools and guidelines and the development of the initial draft of the guideline based on a review of literature, 2) refinement items through several rounds of focus group discussion among the core group, and development initial draft, and 3) Evaluation of the initial draft by scientific committee members. Items in the guideline were organized to accommodate reports of population-based cancer registries as a scientific manuscript. Results: The core committee developed 47 items distributed in the major heading of a scientific manuscript presented as a checklist. The evaluation of the scientific committee led to a consensus on the majority of the items included in the checklist. Among 10 committee members, 7 provided unreserved approval, validating each item's necessity, applicability, and comprehensibility in the checklist. Feedback from the remaining 3 members was carefully analyzed and integrated to enhance the guideline's robustness. Incorporating feedback, a first final draft was presented in a meeting of scientific and core working committee members. Collaborative discussion ensured clarity of expression for each items and a final checklist was developed. Conclusion: The guideline abbreviated as REPCAN offers a standardized framework for reporting population-based cancer registry, fostering transparency, comparability, and comprehensive data presentation. The guideline encourages flexibility while promoting comprehensive and robust reporting practices.

Transforming clinical trials: the emerging roles of large language models.

Clinical trials are essential for medical research, but they often face challenges in matching patients to trials and planning. Large language models (LLMs) offer a promising solution, signaling a transformative shift in the field of clinical trials. This review explores the multifaceted applications of LLMs within clinical trials, focusing on five main areas expected to be implemented in the near future: enhancing patient-trial matching, streamlining clinical trial planning, analyzing free text narratives for coding and classification, assisting in technical writing tasks, and providing cognizant consent via LLM-powered chatbots. While the application of LLMs is promising, it poses challenges such as accuracy validation and legal concerns. The convergence of LLMs with clinical trials has the potential to revolutionize the efficiency of clinical trials, paving the way for innovative methodologies and enhancing patient engagement. However, this development requires careful consideration and investment to overcome potential hurdles.

ChatGPT and Artificial Intelligence in Medical Writing: Concerns and Ethical Considerations.

Artificial intelligence (AI) language generation models, such as ChatGPT, have the potential to revolutionize the field of medical writing and other natural language processing (NLP) tasks. It is crucial to consider the ethical concerns that come with their use. These include bias, misinformation, privacy, lack of transparency, job displacement, stifling creativity, plagiarism, authorship, and dependence. Therefore, it is essential to develop strategies to understand and address these concerns. Important techniques include common bias and misinformation detection, ensuring privacy, providing transparency, and being mindful of the impact on employment. The AI-generated text must be critically reviewed by medical experts to validate the output generated by these models before being used in any clinical or medical context. By considering these ethical concerns and taking appropriate measures, we can ensure that the benefits of these powerful tools are maximized while minimizing any potential harm. This article focuses on the implications of AI assistants in medical writing and hopes to provide insight into the perceived rapid rate of technological progression from a historical and ethical perspective.

Increasing use of EQUATOR guidelines in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between 2020 and 2022: A SWiM review.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the use of EQUATOR guidelines in scientific articles published in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between 2020 and 2022. The aim was also to translate the most widely used guidelines into French, in order to promote their dissemination and use in otorhinolaryngology and head and neck surgery. METHOD: The SWiM guidelines were used. Articles published in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases between January 1, 2020 and December 31, 2022 were retrieved from the PubMed bibliographic database. Editorials, Letters to the Editor and "What is your diagnosis" articles that did not meet any EQUATOR guidelines were excluded from the analysis. RESULTS: Of the 149 eligible published articles, 21.5% (n=32/149) mentioned use of such a guideline. Guideline use by the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology, Head and Neck Diseases author community progressed from 0% in 2020 to 8% in 2021 and 63% in 2022. CONCLUSION: The analysis carried out in this article and the availability of the French version of the seven EQUATOR guidelines most widely used in the European Annals of Otorhinolaryngology Head & Neck Diseases could stimulate application and compliance by authors who submit their work to the journal of the French and international French-speaking societies of otorhinolaryngology.