METHODS: AI-based chatbots (ie, ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, Microsoft Bing AI, and Google Bard) were compared for their abilities to detect clinically relevant DDIs for 255 drug pairs. Descriptive statistics, such as specificity, sensitivity, accuracy, negative predictive value (NPV), and positive predictive value (PPV), were calculated for each tool.
RESULTS: When a subscription tool was used as a reference, the specificity ranged from a low of 0.372 (ChatGPT-3.5) to a high of 0.769 (Microsoft Bing AI). Also, Microsoft Bing AI had the highest performance with an accuracy score of 0.788, with ChatGPT-3.5 having the lowest accuracy rate of 0.469. There was an overall improvement in performance for all the programs when the reference tool switched to a free DDI source, but still, ChatGPT-3.5 had the lowest specificity (0.392) and accuracy (0.525), and Microsoft Bing AI demonstrated the highest specificity (0.892) and accuracy (0.890). When assessing the consistency of accuracy across two different drug classes, ChatGPT-3.5 and ChatGPT-4 showed the highest variability in accuracy. In addition, ChatGPT-3.5, ChatGPT-4, and Bard exhibited the highest fluctuations in specificity when analyzing two medications belonging to the same drug class.
CONCLUSION: Bing AI had the highest accuracy and specificity, outperforming Google's Bard, ChatGPT-3.5, and ChatGPT-4. The findings highlight the significant potential these AI tools hold in transforming patient care. While the current AI platforms evaluated are not without limitations, their ability to quickly analyze potentially significant interactions with good sensitivity suggests a promising step towards improved patient safety.
METHODS: We report 12-month post-treatment data from a single-blind, active-controlled trial (October 2017-August 2019) where 327 Myanmar refugees in Malaysia were assigned to either six sessions of IAT (n = 164) or cognitive behavioral treatment (CBT) (n = 163). Primary outcomes were posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, and persistent complex bereavement disorder (PCBD) symptom scores at treatment end and 12-month post-treatment. Secondary outcome was functional impairment.
RESULTS: 282 (86.2%) participants were retained at 12-month follow-up. For both groups, large treatment effects for common mental disorders (CMD) symptoms were maintained at 12-month post-treatment compared to baseline (d = 0.75-1.13). Although participants in IAT had greater symptom reductions and larger effect sizes than CBT participants for all CMDs at treatment end, there were no significant differences between treatment arms at 12-month post-treatment for PTSD [mean difference: -0.9, 95% CI (-2.5 to 0.6), p = 0.25], depression [mean difference: 0.1, 95% CI (-0.6 to 0.7), p = 0.89), anxiety [mean difference: -0.4, 95% CI (-1.4 to 0.6), p = 0.46], and PCBD [mean difference: -0.6, 95% CI (-3.1 to 1.9), p = 0.65]. CBT participants showed greater improvement in functioning than IAT participants at 12-month post-treatment [mean difference: -2.5, 95% CI (-4.7 to -0.3], p = 0.03]. No adverse effects were recorded for either therapy.
CONCLUSIONS: Both IAT and CBT showed sustained treatment gains for CMD symptoms amongst refugees over the 12-month period.
METHODS: This study reports baseline data from a longitudinal study that was conducted at a hospital in Vietnam. KTRs aged ≥18 years and >3 months post-transplantation were recruited. Assessments included sociodemographic and blood biomarkers. Dietary intake was estimated from 24-hour recalls. A Short Form-36 Health Survey, comprising physical (PCS) and mental component summaries (MCS), was administered to assess QoL. Multivariate linear regression models were performed.
RESULTS: The study included 106 patients (79 men) with a mean age of 43.2 years (± 11.9). Mean duration after kidney transplantation was 28.5 months (± 14.9). Patients with MetS had 6.43 lower PCS score (P < .05) and 3.20 lower MCS score (P < .05) than their counterparts without MetS. Calcium intake (β = -0.01; 95% CI, -0.03 to 0.00) and inadequate protein (β = -14.8; 95% CI, -23 to -6.65) were negatively associated with PCS score. MCS score was negatively associated with calcium intake (β = -0.02; 95% CI, -0.04 to -0.01) and inadequate protein intake (β = -15.1; 95% CI, -24.3 to -5.86), and positively associated with fat intake (β = 0.43, 95% CI, 0.02-0.85).
CONCLUSIONS: MetS and poor dietary intake are independently associated with the QoL of KTRs. Nutritional intervention plans developed specifically for the recipients will improve dietary intake, reduce the incidence of MetS, and help enhance QoL.
METHODS: In this umbrella review, we searched four databases (Pubmed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and Epistemonikos) from database inception to April 2022. The methodological quality of each meta-analysis was assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews, version 2 (AMSTAR-2). The strength of evidence of the associations between race and ethnicity with outcomes was ranked according to established criteria as convincing, highly suggestive, suggestive, weak, or non-significant. The study protocol was registered with PROSPERO, CRD42022336805.
RESULTS: Of 880 records screened, we selected seven meta-analyses for evidence synthesis, with 42 associations examined. Overall, 10 of 42 associations were statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05). Two associations were highly suggestive, two were suggestive, and two were weak, whereas the remaining 32 associations were non-significant. The risk of COVID-19 infection was higher in Black individuals compared to White individuals (risk ratio, 2.08, 95% Confidence Interval (CI), 1.60-2.71), which was supported by highly suggestive evidence; with the conservative estimates from the sensitivity analyses, this association remained suggestive. Among those infected with COVID-19, Hispanic individuals had a higher risk of COVID-19 hospitalization than non-Hispanic White individuals (odds ratio, 2.08, 95% CI, 1.60-2.70) with highly suggestive evidence which remained after sensitivity analyses.
CONCLUSION: Individuals of Black and Hispanic groups had a higher risk of COVID-19 infection and hospitalization compared to their White counterparts. These associations of race and ethnicity and COVID-19 outcomes existed more obviously in the pre-hospitalization stage. More consideration should be given in this stage for addressing health inequity.
METHODS: A search of PubMed, EBSCO host MEDLINE Complete, Scopus database, Google Scholar, and manual citation review was conducted, covering the period between 2010 and 2022. The criteria were selected based on the PRISMA statements. The search mainly focused on finding the existing literature on digital devices that contribute to visual discomfort and digital device settings that provide better visual comfort.
RESULTS: The database search resulted in 533 references via the application of Microsoft Excel. There were 28 studies included in the final assessment. Twelve studies accounted for digital devices that contributed to visual discomfort, while another sixteen studies for digital device settings provided better visual comfort.
CONCLUSION: Digital displays with high luminance contrast, positive polarity and adequate colour were preferred for better visual comfort. Meanwhile, smaller fonts were preferred for desktops and laptops, while larger fonts were favoured for smartphones. This study provides insights for digital display developers to learn and improve their display technology to fit the preferences expressed.
METHODS: Two different novel five-point photonumeric scales for the assessment of static and dynamic forehead lines were developed. Moreover, a photoguide was created, including subjects from both sexes, all age groups, and different Fitzpatrick skin types. A total of 11 raters from all over the world were involved in the digital validation, whereas four raters performed a live validation.
RESULTS: The Croma Static Forehead Lines-Assessment Scale showed almost perfect inter and intra-rater agreement in both the digital and the live setting with inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.86 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.82-0.89] in the first digital rating and 0.82 [95% CI: 0.78-0.86] in the second digital rating. The Croma Dynamic Forehead Lines-Assessment Scale showed almost perfect inter and intra-rater agreement in the digital setting with inter-rater intraclass correlation coefficients of 0.83 [95% CI: 0.79-0.86] in the first digital rating and 0.80 [95% CI: 0.75-0.84] in the second rating and almost substantial agreement in the live setting.
CONCLUSIONS: The Croma Static Forehead Lines-Assessment Scale and the Croma Dynamic Forehead Lines-Assessment Scale have excellent inter and intra-rater agreements to be justifiably used in the clinical and study setting, both digitally and live across ethnic groups.