Citations

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly generative and large language models, is being used in nursing education, practice, and scholarly writing. Generative AI applications have been specifically examined for their use in conducting literature reviews with evidence supporting reduced production time of scholarly work. However, there has been limited investigation of their levels of accuracy with identifying references for a literature review. Objective: The purpose of this study was to compare human-generated citations of literature reviews with AI literature-review generated citations. Methods: Using a comparative exploratory design, references from 4 human-written literature reviews, 2 published and 2 unpublished, on 4 different topics, were compared to references derived from 2 AI literature applications, Consensus and Elicit. Three prompting strategies were utilized, including prompts generated using ChatGPT-4. Agreement between the AI and human references was evaluated. Results: The percent of agreement between AI and human generated reference lists ranged from 0% to 63.6%. The Consensus application had a greater overall mean rate of match (21.3%) as compared to Elicit (3.7%). The use of a ChatGPT-4 prompt did not significantly impact results, and there were no differences based on published or unpublished literature reviews. Conclusion: The 2 literature-based applications examined in this study offered a glimpse of their potential use and limitations. The use of an AI literature review application may support but not replace human work.

ABSTRACT Hypomethylating agents (HMA) and allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (alloHSCT) have both demonstrated remissions in VEXAS; however, comparative data is lacking. We conducted a multicenter, retrospective analysis of 66 patients diagnosed with VEXAS syndrome treated with HMA ( n = 35) or alloHSCT ( n = 31). Baseline characteristics such as genetics, co‐morbidities, and performance status were balanced between the groups, except older age in the HMA group. Median follow‐up from therapy initiation was 18 months (95% CI: 11–26), and 14 (21%) deaths were reported (alloHSCT n = 3; HMA n = 11). Among all evaluable patients within the alloHSCT cohort, all patients achieved molecular remission, and a substantial proportion of patients discontinued glucocorticoids (58%). In contrast, HMA therapy was associated with lower but meaningful rates of molecular remission (22%) and glucocorticoid discontinuation (6%). In a real‐world setting, HMA therapy was associated with a high discontinuation rate related to toxicity or lack of response. On multivariable analysis adjusted for age and Charlson Comorbidity Index, alloHSCT was associated with improved overall survival (HR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05–0.81; p = 0.024). This association remained consistent across multiple ancillary sensitivity analyses, including restriction to transplant‐eligible patients, patients aged ≤ 75 years, 1:1 matching, and propensity score‐based weighted analyses. Although limited by retrospective design, these findings suggest that alloHSCT remains an attractive and potentially curative strategy in selected patients with VEXAS. Prospective validation of these findings is warranted.

Neuroplastic changes in phrenic motor neurons that underlie recovery from spinal cord injury may be mediated by perineuronal nets. We show that changes in perineuronal nets around phrenic motor neurons occur within 7 days after cervical spinal cord injury, and that the increase in perineuronal nets around larger phrenic motor neurons was more pronounced. These changes are consistent with substantial reorganization of the neural network onto intact phrenic motor neurons following cervical spinal cord injury.