Search

Introduction: The emergence of artificial intelligence (AI) chat programs has opened two distinct paths, one enhancing interaction and another potentially replacing personal understanding. Ethical and legal concerns arise due to the rapid development of these programs. This paper investigates academic discussions on AI in medicine, analyzing the context, frequency, and reasons behind these conversations. Methods: The study collected data from the Web of Science database on articles containing the keyword "ChatGPT" published from January to September 2023, resulting in 786 medically related journal articles. The inclusion criteria were peer-reviewed articles in English related to medicine. Results: The United States led in publications (38.1%), followed by India (15.5%) and China (7.0%). Keywords such as "patient" (16.7%), "research" (12%), and "performance" (10.6%) were prevalent. The Cureus Journal of Medical Science (11.8%) had the most publications, followed by the Annals of Biomedical Engineering (8.3%). August 2023 had the highest number of publications (29.3%), with significant growth between February to March and April to May. Medical General Internal (21.0%) was the most common category, followed by Surgery (15.4%) and Radiology (7.9%). Discussion: The prominence of India in ChatGPT research, despite lower research funding, indicates the platform's popularity and highlights the importance of monitoring its use for potential medical misinformation. China's interest in ChatGPT research suggests a focus on Natural Language Processing (NLP) AI applications, despite public bans on the platform. Cureus' success in publishing ChatGPT articles can be attributed to its open-access, rapid publication model. The study identifies research trends in plastic surgery, radiology, and obstetric gynecology, emphasizing the need for ethical considerations and reliability assessments in the application of ChatGPT in medical practice. Conclusion: ChatGPT's presence in medical literature is growing rapidly across various specialties, but concerns related to safety, privacy, and accuracy persist. More research is needed to assess its suitability for patient care and implications for non-medical use. Skepticism and thorough review of research are essential, as current studies may face retraction as more information emerges. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

After 1945, Western medicine was influenced mostly by investigations from Britain and the USA. This paper deals with the presentation of German medicine in the German weekly «Der Spiegel» between 1947 and 1955, when German society changed from a postwar community focussed on survival to a modern western society. The paper will particularly focus on medicine as a service, dealing not with diagnostic and therapeutic innovations, but with troublesome every-day problems of body and soul at the border of health and disease. The paper argues that »service medicine« was an important tool for German medicine to achieve social acceptance and to integrate itself into the new German democratic society with its private market economy. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Editorial. Discusses the emergence of nanomedicine. Estimate by the U.S. National Science Foundation that the nanotechnology markets will be worth $1 trillion dollars by 2015; Allotment of funds for nanoresearch from the European Commission; List of various nanoinstruments and their applications; Reaction of consumer organisations to the risks of nanotechnology; Study which has been commissioned by the Office of Science and Technology to investigate the potential risks and benefits.

Background Assessment of symptoms or disease improvement by study participants is an important aspect of assessing new dermatological therapies in clinical trials, especially for chronic skin diseases that lack objective severity markers. Objectives We sought to determine the frequency and prominence of reporting of participants’ subjective efficacy outcomes in dermatological clinical trials. Our secondary objective was to determine whether participant and physician outcomes agree in terms of direction and magnitude. Methods Systematic review of 125 randomized controlled trials identified from the Archives of Dermatology, British Journal of Dermatology, Clinical & Experimental Dermatology, Journal of Dermatological Treatment and Journal of the American Academy of Dermatology published between 1994 and 2001 (25 from each). Studies were retrieved in hard copy from the Cochrane Skin Group specialized register of trials and data were abstracted and summarized. Results Participant efficacy outcomes were mentioned in some form in only 32 of 125 trials (25·6%, 95% exact confidence interval 18·2–34·2%). Of these 32 studies, participant outcomes were mentioned only in the methods section in two studies, in the methods and results section without further data in nine studies and with further data in 21. Data were presented in figure format only in 12 of these studies and in tables and figures in nine. Participant efficacy outcomes were mentioned in the abstract section in just over half (53%) of the 32 trials that included participant efficacy outcomes. There was not enough information to assess agreement in direction and magnitude of participant vs. assessor outcomes. Overall, only 17 papers (13·6%) clearly declared their main outcome measures beforehand in the introduction or methods section. Conclusions Asking study participants for their views of treatment efficacy seems like a good idea in dermatological clinical trials, yet only about a quarter of the trials examined in this review did so. Even when such information was recorded, it was often poorly and incompletely reported and given low prominence within the trial report. Our study findings call for a more comprehensive uptake for including participant efficacy outcomes alongside other assessor outcomes in clinical trials and, when included, to report those outcomes in full. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Prior classification of rhinitis was into three categories: acute, subacute and chronic rhinosinusitis. The advantages of this classification were obvious but they were offset by some disadvantages. For example, the previous classification did not take account of the mechanisms underlying the condition or the clinical outcome. Hence, there was a need for evidence-based sinusitis classification guidelines. The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery and other related societies published a classification of the condition and suggested clinical research strategies for patients with rhinosinusitis. The main conclusion was that sinusitis should be divided into four categories: acute (bacterial) rhinosinusitis, chronic rhinosinusitis (CRS) without polyps, CRS with polyps, and allergic fungal sinusitis. The aim of this current paper is to discuss the consensus for nomenclature, outline the proposed classification of different types of rhinosinusitis and to suggest some ways that we may audit these guidelines. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents news briefs related to medicine in the U.S. The new U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) Policy states that NIH-funded researchers should submit an e-version of their research manuscripts to the NIH at the time of their paper's acceptance by a journal. The U.S. Department of Health & Human Services inspector general has issued a report reviewing more than 400 financial conflict of interest reports filed with the NIH.