BACKGROUND: Generative artificial intelligence (GenAI) Large-language models such as ChatGPT have become increasingly popular in various fields. However, the impact of ChatGPT on dental research writing has yet to be quantified. This study aimed to assess ChatGPT\'s usage in dental research writing and discuss potential advantages and challenges.
METHODS: Using a bibliometric design, we performed a keyword analysis of specific \'signaling words\' indicative of ChatGPT use in the titles/abstracts of 299,695 dental research abstracts indexed PubMed 2018-2024. Statistical comparisons using normalized ratios per 10,000 dental publications compared changes in word frequency before and after the ChatGPT release on November 30, 2022.
RESULTS: Before ChatGPT\'s release, the frequency of abstracts with signaling words was 47.1 per 10,000 papers. After the release, this increased to 224.2 per 10,000 papers, an increase of 177.2 per 10,000 papers (p = 0.014, 95 % CI 53.5-300.7). The word \'delve\' showed the most significant usage increase (increased ratio=17.0).
CONCLUSIONS: This study is among the first to systematically assess the use of GenAI, specifically ChatGPT, in dental research. We found evidence of the use and growth of ChatGPT in dental research publications. This trend indicates the widespread adoption of GenAI-assisted writing in scientific communication, consistent with other scientific fields. While GenAI can potentially increase productivity and inclusivity, it raises concerns such as bias, inaccuracy, and distortion of academic incentives. Therefore, our findings support the need for clear AI guidelines and standards for academic publishing to ensure responsible use and maintain scientific integrity.

In recent decades, members of the general public have become increasingly reliant on findings of scientific studies for decision-making. However, scientific writing usually features a heavy use of technical language, which may pose challenges for people outside of the scientific community. To alleviate this issue, plain language summaries were introduced to provide a brief summary of scientific papers in clear and accessible language. Despite increasing attention paid to the research of plain language summaries, little is known about whether these summaries are readable for the intended audiences. Based on a large corpus sampled from six biomedical and life sciences journals, the present study examined the readability and jargon use of plain language summaries and scientific abstracts on a technical level. It was found that (1) plain language summaries were more readable than scientific abstracts, (2) the reading grade levels of plain language summaries were moderately correlated with that of scientific abstracts, (3) researchers used less jargon in plain language summaries than in scientific abstracts, and (4) the readability of and the jargon use in both plain language summaries and scientific abstracts exceeded the recommended threshold for the general public. The findings were discussed with possible explanations. Implications for academic writing and scientific communication were offered.

Conducting high-quality peer review of scientific manuscripts has become increasingly challenging. The substantial increase in the number of manuscripts, lack of a sufficient number of peer-reviewers, and questions related to effectiveness, fairness, and efficiency, require a different approach. Large-language models, 1 form of artificial intelligence (AI), have emerged as a new approach to help resolve many of the issues facing contemporary medicine and science. We believe AI should be used to assist in the triaging of manuscripts submitted for peer-review publication.

We studied social-psychological effects over time of a faculty-mentor workshop intervention that addressed attitudes associated with language variety and their impact on scientific communication (SC) skill development of PhD and postdoctoral STEM research trainees (N = 274). Six months after their mentors attended the workshop, all mentees had significant gains in productivity in speaking tasks. In particular, mentees with high language discomfort rated their quality of communication with their mentor and their enthusiasm about communicating more highly (p < .05 for both measures), compared to mentees with low language discomfort. In addition, mentees raised speaking nonstandardized varieties of English reported significant reductions in discomfort related to language use (p = .003), compared to mentees raised speaking standardized English. We conclude that training mentors to understand and respond to language diversity and development results in multiple beneficial outcomes for mentees, including the amelioration of language-variety related discomfort in the research environment.

In their Letter to the Editor, Nizzetto et al. challange a recent article in which I show that there has been unwarranted alarmism about biodegradable mulch films due to the publication of numerous articles based on preliminary data that are irrelevant for drawing conclusions on environmental risk. The tendency to over-emphasise results in order to attract attention is a growing problem in the scientific world and has been studied by many scholars. Nizzetto et al. accuse me of not using scientific methodology and of not disclosing that I am a scientist working for a company that produces biodegradable plastics. In this rebuttal I show that Nizzetto et al.\'s accusations suffer from a number of logical fallacies, in particular the \"straw man\" fallacy and the \"ad hominem\" fallacy.

Scientific communication has become more important than ever before, yet most scientists are not trained in how to communicate their research findings to the general public. The PopScience assignment is a semester-long writing and oral communication project that focuses on how to communicate primary scientific literature to the general public. The overall goals of the PopScience project are to teach students how to: 1) critically evaluate neuroscience primary literature, and 2) translate and convey primary literature findings to a lay audience. Students completed a pre- and post- assignment perceptive assessment to evaluate the skills they obtained (e.g., reading comprehension and critical thinking), and the effectiveness of the assignment in improving these skills. Students reported that overall, the assignment improved their ability to read primary literature articles and explain them to a lay audience. Self-evaluation and professor assessments suggest the PopScience assignment also improved student\'s ability to integrate and summarize results from multiple sources, as well as identify and explain neuroscience terminology that often leads to confusion for lay audiences. In conclusion, this assignment teaches students how to communicate basic neuroscience to the general public, a skill that continues to be critical in successful scientific careers.

暂无摘要。

Not only did COVID-19 give rise to a global pandemic, but also it resulted in an infodemic comprising misinformation, rumor, and propaganda. The consequences of this infodemic can erode public trust, impede the containment of the virus, and outlive the pandemic itself. The evolving and fragmented media landscape, particularly the extensive use of social media, is a crucial driver of the spread of misinformation. Focusing on the Chinese social media Weibo, we collected four million tweets, from December 9, 2019, to April 4, 2020, examining misinformation identified by the fact-checking platform Tencent-a leading Chinese tech giant. Our results show that the evolution of misinformation follows an issue-attention cycle pertaining to topics such as city lockdown, cures and preventive measures, school reopening, and foreign countries. Sensational and emotionally reassuring misinformation characterizes the whole issue-attention cycle, with misinformation on cures and prevention flooding social media. We also study the evolution of sentiment and observe that positive sentiment dominated over the course of Covid, which may be due to the unique characteristic of \"positive energy\" on Chinese social media. Lastly, we study the media landscape during Covid via a case study on a controversial unproven cure known as Shuanghuanglian, which testifies to the importance of scientific communication in a plague. Our findings shed light on the distinct characteristics of misinformation and its cultural, social, and political implications, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study also offers insights into combating misinformation in China and across the world at large.

The process of peer review has been the gold standard for evaluating medical science, but significant pressures from the recent COVID-19 pandemic, new methods of communication, larger amounts of research, and an evolving publication landscape have placed significant pressures on this system. A task force convened by the American College of Cardiology identified the 5 most significant controversies associated with the current peer-review process: the effect of preprints, reviewer blinding, reviewer selection, reviewer incentivization, and publication of peer reviewer comments. Although specific solutions to these issues will vary, regardless of how scientific communication evolves, peer review must remain an essential process for ensuring scientific integrity, timely dissemination of information, and better patient care. In medicine, the peer-review process is crucial because harm can occur if poor-quality data or incorrect conclusions are published. With the dramatic increase in scientific publications and new methods of communication, high-quality peer review is more important now than ever.

Biomedical science suffered a loss of trust during the Covid-19 pandemic. Why? One reason is a crisis fueled by confusion over the epistemology of science. Attacks on biomedical expertise rest on a mistaken view of what the justification is for crediting scientific information. The ideas that science is characterized by universal agreement and that any evolution or change of beliefs about facts and theories undermines trustworthiness in science are simply false. Biomedical science is trustworthy precisely because it is fallible, admits error, adjusts to new information, and, most importantly, is practical. Successful diagnosis and cure demarcate the boundaries of warranted knowledge. The other reason is sociological. As the pandemic made all too clear, the loss of faith in scientific experts was due to the failure of most of them to engage in regular public dialogue, reflecting a failure to recognize the obligation that science has to bolster trust in its work and findings by concerted public engagement.