A publishing infrastructure for AI-assisted academic authoring


In this work we investigate how models with advanced natural language processing capabilities can be used to reduce the time-consuming process of writing and revising scholarly manuscripts. To this end, we integrate large language models into the Manubot publishing ecosystem to suggest revisions for scholarly text. We tested our AI-based revision workflow in three case studies of existing manuscripts, including the present one. Our results suggest that these models can capture the concepts in the scholarly text and produce high-quality revisions that improve clarity. Given the amount of time that researchers put into crafting prose, we anticipate that this advance will revolutionize the type of knowledge work performed by academics.



Source link

Evaluation of Grit and its Associated Factors among Undergraduate Pharmacy Students from 14 Asian and Middle Eastern Countries amid the COVID-19 Pandemic



Introduction:

Grit is proposed as an essential trait for Academic achievement. Thus, evaluating its current status and the associated factors could aid Academic support planning.


Objective:

The present study aimed to assess grit level and its related factors among undergraduate pharmacy students from 14 countries amid the COVID-19 pandemic.


Methods:

A cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted among pharmacy students from 14 countries in Asia and the Middle East. A 31-item questionnaire was developed, validated, and pilot-tested, including the validated short scale for grit assessment. The data was collected between 1 February and 15 April 2022. Descriptive and inferential statistics were employed as appropriate.


Results:

A total of 2665 responses were received, mainly from females (68.7%), living in urban areas (69.2%) and studying at private universities (59.1%). The average grit score on a scale of 5 was 3.15 ± 0.54. The responses revealed higher favourable responses to items on the perseverance of efforts (34.9% to 54%) compared to items on the consistency of interests (26.5% to 31.1%). Students who did not exercise (AOR: 0.47, 95%CI: 0.33-0.67) or exercised irregularly (AOR: 0.64, 95%CI: 0.45-0.90) were less likely to have higher grit scores than those who exercised regularly. Additionally, students who did not receive COVID-19 vaccination (AOR: 0.50, 95%CI: 0.36-0.71) or received only one dose (AOR: 0.67, 95%CI: 0.46-0.99) were less likely to have higher grit scores than those who received their booster vaccination. Interestingly, students who chose the pharmacy programme as their only available or reasonable choice (AOR: 0.33, 95%CI: 0.17-0.62) and students from public universities (AOR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.68-0.98) were less likely to have higher grit scores. On the other hand, students who did not face educational challenges with online learning (AOR: 1.19, 95%CI: 1.003-1.416) and students with excellent (AOR: 2.28, 95%CI: 1.57-3.31) and very good (AOR: 2.16, 95%CI: 1.53-3.04) Academic performance were more likely to have higher grit scores.


Conclusion:

The findings revealed moderate grit levels. Higher grit levels were thought to be associated with several personal, lifestyle and Academic factors. Further interventions to support students’ grit attributes are required, particularly concerning the consistency of interests.


Keywords:

Asia; Middle east; education; grit; pharmacy; students.



Source link

Guselkumab plus golimumab combination therapy versus guselkumab or golimumab monotherapy in patients with ulcerative colitis (VEGA): a randomised, double-blind, controlled, phase 2, proof-of-concept trial


Lancet Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2023 Feb 1:S2468-1253(22)00427-7. doi: 10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00427-7. Online ahead of print.

ABSTRACT

BACKGROUND: Despite the introduction of new monoclonal antibodies and oral therapies for the treatment of ulcerative colitis, clinical remission rates remain low, underscoring the need for innovative treatment approaches. We assessed whether guselkumab plus golimumab combination therapy was more effective for ulcerative colitis than either monotherapy.

METHODS: We did a randomised, double-blind, controlled, proof-of-concept trial at 54 hospitals, Academic medical centres, or private practices in nine countries. Eligible adults (aged ≥18 to 65 years) had a confirmed diagnosis of ulcerative colitis at least 3 months before screening and moderately-to-severely active ulcerative colitis (Mayo score 6-12) with a centrally-read baseline endoscopy subscore of 2 or higher. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1:1) using a computer-generated randomisation schedule to combination therapy (subcutaneous golimumab 200 mg at week 0, subcutaneous golimumab 100 mg at weeks 2, 6, and 10, and intravenous guselkumab 200 mg at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by subcutaneous guselkumab monotherapy 100 mg every 8 weeks for 32 weeks), golimumab monotherapy (subcutaneous golimumab 200 mg at week 0 followed by subcutaneous golimumab 100 mg at week 2 and every 4 weeks thereafter for 34 weeks), or guselkumab monotherapy (intravenous guselkumab 200 mg at weeks 0, 4, and 8, followed by subcutaneous guselkumab 100 mg every 8 weeks thereafter for 32 weeks). The primary endpoint was clinical response at week 12 (defined as a ≥30% decrease from baseline in the full Mayo score and a ≥3 points absolute reduction with either a decrease in rectal bleeding score of ≥1 point or a rectal bleeding score of 0 or 1). Efficacy was analysed in the modified intention-to-treat population up to week 38, which included all randomly assigned patients who received at least one (partial or complete) study intervention dose. Safety was analysed up to week 50, according to study intervention received among all patients who received at least one (partial or complete) dose of study intervention. This trial is complete and is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03662542.

FINDINGS: Between Nov 20, 2018, and Nov 15, 2021, 358 patients were screened for eligibility, of whom 214 patients were randomly assigned to combination therapy (n=71), golimumab monotherapy (n=72), or guselkumab monotherapy (n=71). Of the 214 patients included, 98 (46%) were women and 116 (54%) were men and the mean age was 38·4 years (SD 12·0). At week 12, 59 (83%) of 71 patients in the combination therapy group had achieved clinical response compared with 44 (61%) of 72 patients in the golimumab monotherapy group (adjusted treatment difference 22·1% [80% CI 12·9 to 31·3]; nominal p=0·0032) and 53 (75%) of 71 patients in the guselkumab monotherapy group (adjusted treatment difference 8·5% [-0·2 to 17·1; nominal p=0·2155). At week 50, 45 (63%) of 71 patients in the combination therapy group, 55 (76%) of 72 patients in the golimumab monotherapy group, and 46 (65%) of 71 patients in the guselkumab monotherapy group had reported at least one adverse event. The most common adverse events were ulcerative colitis, upper respiratory tract infection, headache, anaemia, nasopharyngitis, neutropenia, and pyrexia. No deaths, malignancies, or cases of tuberculosis were reported during the combination induction period. One case of tuberculosis was reported in the combination therapy group and one case of colon adenocarcinoma was reported in the guselkumab monotherapy group; both occurred after week 12. Two deaths were reported after the final dose of study intervention (poisoning in the combination therapy group and COVID-19 in the guselkumab monotherapy group).

INTERPRETATION: Data from this proof-of-concept study suggest that combination therapy with guselkumab and golimumab might be more effective for ulcerative colitis than therapy with either drug alone. These findings require confirmation in larger trials.

FUNDING: Janssen Research and Development.

PMID:36738762 | DOI:10.1016/S2468-1253(22)00427-7



Source link

Editorial: Body fluid biomarkers in neurodegenerative studies: Novel insights into pathophysiology to support clinical practice and drug development


Editorial

. 2023 Jan 17;14:1103116.


doi: 10.3389/fneur.2023.1103116.


eCollection 2023.

Affiliations

Item in Clipboard

Editorial

Anastasia Bougea et al.


Front Neurol.


.

No abstract available


Keywords:

Alzheimer’s disease (AD); Parkinson’s disease (PD); biomarkers; neurodegeneration; pathophysiology.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.



Source link