Open Research Oklahoma (Oklahoma State Univ.)
Not a member yet
42035 research outputs found
Sort by
Evaluating artificial intelligence policies in oncology journals: Assessing guidelines for use and authorship
No full textIntroduction/Objectives: Cancer impacts a significant number of individuals, with approximately 20 million cases reported in 2022, with nearly 10 million cancer-related deaths globally. Investing in cancer research therefore carries immense value, with the goal of better preventing, diagnosing, and effectively treating cases of various types of cancer. Given the novelty of AI in research, it is important to understand its effects on scientific research. Journal policies on the use of AI in publishing research remain ambiguous due to the absence of universal guidelines for its implementation. To our knowledge, no studies have investigated journal guidelines on AI within oncology research. Therefore, our study aimed to assess how AI is addressed in policy and reporting guidelines within the field of oncology. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate how AI is addressed in policy and reporting guidelines within the top 100 oncology journals. The secondary outcome focused on reviewing and summarizing the policies across these journals regarding the use of AI-generated content, including text, images, and writing, as well as the acceptance or prohibition of AI authorship.Methods: Clinical oncology journals were identified using the SCImago Journal and Country Rank (SJR) database. The top 100 peer-reviewed clinical journals in oncology were evaluated.. Discontinued journals and those without accessible author instructions or editorial contact were excluded. Three investigators, ZT, TS, CO, independently extracted data from author instructions using a masked, duplicate approach. For journals mentioning AI in their author instructions, policy details on authorship, manuscript writing, content and image generation, and AI-specific reporting guidelines were extracted. Correlational analyses in R (v4.2.1) and RStudio examined links between AI policies and journal characteristics.Results: AI was mentioned in 68% of the top 100 oncology journals. Of the journals, 67% allowed for authorship, while the remaining 33% did not have any statement for AI in authorship. Additionally, 64% of journals required authors to disclose the use of AI, with 36% of journals having no statement of AI in authorship. Of the top 100 journals, 56% allowed for AI for manuscript writing (grammar, revising), whereas 44% had no statements; 12% of journals allowed for AI to be used in content generation (i.e., data curation), 43% did not mention, and 45% having no statement. For image generation, 11% of journals allowed for the use of AI, 46% did not, and 43% had no statement.Conclusion: The majority of the top 100 oncology journals mention the use of AI in their instructions for authors, with most requiring its disclosure by authors and allowing for its use in manuscript writing. Though, most journals did not allow the use of AI for content generation and image generation. The concern for the transparency and the correct use of AI remains strong, as almost one third of the journals did not mention AI in their instructions for authors. Future studies should be conducted to allow for a clearer picture on the influences of AI within oncological research
Toward a social contract for the ethical use of generative artificial intelligence in research and education; Or, if not us, then who?
No full textThis presentation examines the benefits and risks of generative AI in research and education, calling for a social contract to guide its ethical use. It emphasizes the need for proactive policy, shared responsibility, and thoughtful integration to ensure AI supports, rather than undermines, learning and scholarship.falseMedia and Strategic Communication
Endorsement of artificial intelligence guidelines across leading emergency medicine journals: A cross-sectional analysis
No full textBackground: Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing Emergency Medicine research by improving data analysis, systematic reviews, and clinical practices. However, its incorporation raises issues related to transparency, ethical considerations, and reproducibility. This study examines how prominent Emergency Medicine journals address these challenges and opportunities through their author guidelines and policies.Methods: A cross-sectional review of the top 100 peer-reviewed Emergency Medicine journals, ranked by the 2023 SCImago SJR indicator, was conducted. Information was extracted from each journal’s "Instructions for Authors" to assess AI-related policies, including AI-specific reporting recommendations, authorship criteria, and the utilization of AI in manuscript creation and image generation. Correlational analyses were performed to explore the relationship between AI policies and journal characteristics.Results: Among the 100 journals reviewed, 56% addressed AI use in their guidelines, with most journals prohibiting AI authorship but mandating the disclosure of AI involvement in submissions. AI-generated content was permitted by 21% of journals, while 19% authorized AI-generated images. Journals with higher impact factors were more inclined to include comprehensive AI policies, though significant inconsistencies and gaps in standardization remain.Conclusion: Although numerous Emergency Medicine journals acknowledge AI's role in research, few support AI-specific reporting guidelines, hindering the standardization and transparency of AI usage. We advocate for the adoption of thorough guidelines to ensure ethical, reproducible, and high-quality research in the age of AI-driven progress
Can a Christian be a Stoic? A comparison from metaphysics to ethics
No full textThe goal of this research is to compare early Christianity with its philosophical contemporary of Stoicism, by exploring how their respective metaphysical systems effected their prescribed ethical perspectives. This project will argue that while there are general points of congruence in their ethics and metaphysics there are salient points of disagreement – something that is often downplayed. Throughout this paper I will compare the two systems upon the following contours: points of agreement, points of seeming agreement, and points of disagreement. For each point, I will assess a claim made by each system and explore the respective metaphysics that inform that claim. I will assess points of agreement, disagreement, and seeming agreement in the domains of their respective views on God, anthropology, ethics, and providence. On God we find disagreement in the relation between God and the universe. The Stoic system describes God as corporeal and mixed into the universe, to the point that God and the universe are occupying the same space, at the same time. Hence the Stoics are often interpreted as pantheists. The Christian system contrasts with this as it distinguishes God as wholly other than the universe. The Christian God is transcendent in relation to the universe; the Stoic God is nearly identical to the universe. This is a metaphysical disagreement. With respect to fate, while we find seeming agreement in both systems’ description of God as providentially working in the unfolding of history, there is disagreement, however, in the axiology of that providence. The Stoic maintains that all that happens is according to the God’s rational plan and is accordingly good. The Christian system would respond rather that God is working all things towards good. In the Christian system God is working all things out “according to the counsel of his will” and “for the good of those who love God.” According to the Christian, history is working towards redemption, in the Stoic system history needs no redemption. On Anthropology, there is seeming agreement in how human value is described but upon further analysis disagreement comes to the surface. While the systems share similar language to speak of the soul of a human and agree that humans have a high place in the cosmos, they disagree in how that value is grounded. In the Stoic system human value is grounded in that we are an instance of the God who permeates all. In our sharing of the divine rationality, we “constitute an emanation” of that God. In the Christian system human value is grounded in our relation to God as his image bearers. There is a distinction between God and man. That is to say we share a likeness and relation to God while remaining something separate, while the Stoics say we are something more like an occurrence or instance of God. This is a point of disagreement. On ethics, we find a seeming agreement in that both systems describe a struggle between vice and virtue for the Stoics and sin and righteousness for the Christians. Disagreement arises in their means to overcome the respective struggles. The Stoic maintains that humans are self-sufficient in their nature to overcome vice, given their divine rationality. The Christian maintains the natural human is not sufficient to overcome sin, rather grace is necessary. By comparing the two systems in the previously mentioned domains, this research illustrates that while there is often surface level agreement, there are sharp and irreconcilable differences between the two systems.Lew Wentz FoundationPhilosoph
Assessing the prevalence, quality, and compliance of data sharing statements in gastroenterology publications: A cross-sectional analysis
No full textObjective: To examine the current state of data sharing practices in gastroenterology literature, focusing on data sharing statements (DSS) and identifying influential factors on DSS inclusion.Background: High-quality, reproducible research is crucial in addressing the widespread prevalence of gastrointestinal diseases. Data sharing practices enable researchers to access studies more easily, enhancing reproducibility. Our study aims to analyze the inclusion and influence of DSS in top gastroenterology journals.Methods: We conducted a cross- sectional analysis to examine the use and contents of DSS in gastroenterology clinical trials. Using Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports™, we selected five leading gastroenterology journals. Then, we searched MEDLINE (PubMed) for original research articles published between January 1, 2018 to December 31, 2023. In a double blind, duplicate manner, data was extracted on DSS presence, funding source, study design, and open-access status. We then conducted a thematic analysis of all DSS. Additionally, authors were contacted and given 14 days to respond or share data to investigate adherence to their DSS.Findings: Of the 953 articles that met inclusion criteria, 400 (400/953; 42·0%) contained a DSS. Open access articles had a higher likelihood of containing DSS (estimate = 0·413; pLancet Gastroenterology and Hepatology has the highest percentage of DSS (159/194; 82·0%), while Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology has the lowest percentage of DSS (33/256; 12·9%). Impact factor is a significant indicator for DSS (estimate = 0·138, p= 0·01). Finally, ‘conditional data availability’ was the most common data theme in our study (225/303; 74·3%). Over half (153/284 (53·9%) of authors contacted did not respond to our request for sharing data.Interpretation: Our findings reveal significant variability in data-sharing statement inclusion and adherence among top gastroenterology journals. Journals with mandatory data-sharing policies demonstrated higher compliance, while open-access status and journal impact factor were positively associated with data-sharing practices. However, a notable gap remains in authors' follow-through on stated data-sharing commitments
Social media’s distorted lens: Correlations between social media usage and perceptions of motherhood and infant development
No full textSocial media has emerged as a pervasive force in shaping perceptions of motherhood and expectations about infant behavior (Kirkpatrick and Lee 2022). Images portrayed over social media are often glamorized and over-exaggerated, falsely depicting the realities of parenthood (Brown and Tiggemann 2016). Over time, repeated exposures to idealized portrayals of maternal experiences and infant behavior may impact caregivers’ cognitive appraisals, including attributional processes, of their own parenting and infant development (Kirkpatrick and Lee 2022). Currently, there is extensive research in how social media may impact mothers’ social comparison with each other, such as maternal competence (Tosun et al., 2020). There is moderate research in how social media is related to infant care decisions and portrayals of infant development (Moon et al., 2019). Currently, little is known about how social media usage impacts perceptions of motherhood and infant development. This is a critical gap given the growing reliance on social media (Pellegrino et al., 2022).The goals of the current study are to 1) characterize social media usage in mothers of 4- to 6-month old infants, including aspects such as site, function of, and amount of usage; and 2) to examine the associations between social media usage and perceptions of motherhood, mother-infant dynamics, and idealized infant development.
Data collection for the study is ongoing. Participants complete questionnaires, including a lab-created measure of social media usage, which assesses the site, purpose, and duration of usage and several measures of maternal perceptions of infant development (e.g., Mind Perceptions), motherhood broadly (e.g., Being a Parent, My Emotions Questionnaire), and infant behavior (e.g., Attributions Questionnaire, Infant Crying Questionnaire). We hypothesize that higher exposure to social media, particularly consumption activities, will be associated with more distorted cognitions about motherhood and infant development and behavior. If hypotheses are supported, we will have preliminary evidence for the specific perceptions of motherhood and infant behavior and development that may be correlated with social media usage. Logical next steps involve using this data to identify or develop potential interventions that can mitigate the impact of social media on distorted perceptions of motherhood and infant development.Psycholog
Data sharing in anesthesia research: The price tag of transparency and compliance
No full textIntroduction: This study evaluated data sharing statements (DSS) in manuscripts from the top five anesthesia journals between 2020 and 2023. DSS are crucial for research transparency. Given the growth in anesthesia and its research, it is important to assess how leading journals are adopting these practices. This analysis investigates DSS presence and quality in leading anesthesia journals publishing primary patient data.Methods: We identified the top five anesthesia journals using Clarivate’s Journal Citation Reports™ and searched MEDLINE (PubMed) for relevant studies from 2020 to 2023. Authors screened articles and extracted data using a standardized form. We focused on DSS presence, themes, and authors’ responsiveness to data sharing requests.Results: DSS prevalence varied: Anaesthesia, Critical Care & Pain Medicine increased from 15.4% in 2020 to 30% in 2023, while Anesthesia and Analgesia remained under 8%. Government-funded research was positively associated with DSS inclusion (estimate: 0.734, p = 0.047), whereas higher impact factor journals showed a negative association (estimate: -0.298, p = 0.008). The most common DSS theme was Conditional Data Availability (74.5%). Only 27.4% of authors responded to data sharing requests, and 13.7% agreed to share data for replication.Conclusion: The study reveals significant deficiencies in data sharing practices in leading anesthesia journals. Implementing robust data sharing policies could improve transparency and reproducibility, advancing open science in this field
Observations of the corn leafhopper in Oklahoma during the 2024 corn stunt disease outbreak
No full textThe corn leafhopper, Dalbulus maidis (DeLong and Wolcott) (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae), has been a major agricultural pest in South America and Mexico, for several decades but was first documented in Oklahoma in the late summer of 2024. The corn leafhopper is an efficient vector responsible for transmitting pathogens that can cause corn stunt disease. This disease results in loose corn kernels, smaller corn ears, and thus directly impacts yield. The pathogens associated with this disease were confirmed throughout the U.S. Great Plains and Corn Belt, including several Oklahoma counties in 2024. In 2024, economic losses of 10-55% were attributed to this disease in Oklahoma corn production. Current literature suggests corn leafhoppers only reproduce in corn; outside of the United States adult corn leafhoppers have been reported to overwinter in alfalfa, wheat, Johnson grass, and gamagrasses when environmental conditions allow. Understanding the seasonal spread of the corn leafhopper outside its native range is important for future integrated pest management (IPM) should this pest continue to persist in the United States.
In this study, yellow sticky traps were placed from August 2024 through January 2025 in continuous field corn, volunteer field corn, and alfalfa fields in four Oklahoma counties to gather information about the seasonal occurrence and distribution of the corn leafhopper. Over 3,300 corn leafhoppers were identified from more than 180 traps analyzed for this study. Additional leafhopper species were also confirmed, adding to the knowledge base of insect activity in Oklahoma corn production. Corn leafhoppers were collected from each monitored field site with their last detection in early January. This data suggests that these insects may be able to survive colder temperatures than what has previously been reported and that non-corn cropping systems in the United States may be suitable overwintering sites for the corn leafhopper. The results presented here are part of larger, regional projects aimed at informing future IPM strategies as there are no curative strategies available for the disease and no resistant corn hybrids. Little is also known regarding effective and sustainable chemical control options available in the United States for the corn leafhopper.Entomology and Plant Patholog
Sleep health disparities in autistic children: Barriers to representation in research
No full textSleep health plays an important role in the development and well-being of autistic children, yet disparities in research and access to care remain a significant issue (Han et al., 2022). Despite knowledge that sleep problems are common among autistic children, existing studies often lack representation from rural, low-income, and minority populations. The research gaps may contribute to inequities in access to appropriate interventions and sleep-related support, ultimately impacting health outcomes for autistic children and their families (Tan-MacNeill et al., 2020). In this literature review, we examine studies on sleep health in autistic individuals, focusing on gaps in research and barriers to participation for underrepresented populations. Specifically, we explore the characteristics of participants included in previously published studies on sleep for autistic children. We also assess the research methodology and recruitment strategies used in these studies that may contribute to ongoing underrepresentation in sleep and autism studies. Existing research highlights the need for more inclusive sleep research methodologies and accessible sleep interventions for minority populations with a historical and ongoing distrust of the medical system and families facing socioeconomic and geographic challenges (Gulsrud et al., 2021). Understanding who is represented in existing sleep research is an essential next step for conducting more equitable sleep research studies and ultimately improving sleep-related support for all autistic children and their families.Human Development and Family Scienc
Lowering pain and inflammation drug costs: Evaluating the impact of the Mark Cuban Cost Plus drug company model on Medicare savings
No full textBackground: Pain and inflammation are among the most prevalent and debilitating conditions affecting Medicare beneficiaries, with 78% reporting chronic pain and nearly half relying on medications like NSAIDs, acetaminophen, and anticonvulsants for management. These conditions necessitate long-term pharmaceutical interventions, contributing significantly to the rising costs within Medicare Part D, which covers prescription drugs for over 80% of beneficiaries. Current pricing structures and the inability to negotiate prices exacerbate the financial strain on this demographic, leading to high out-of-pocket expenses and reduced medication adherence. This study examines the potential of the Mark Cuban Cost Plus Drug Company (MCCPDC) pricing model to address these challenges by providing affordable alternatives for pain and inflammation medications.Methods: A cross-sectional analysis was conducted comparing 2022 Medicare Part D spending data with 2024 MCCPDC prices for 25 generic medications in their ‘Pain & Inflammation’ category. Cost comparisons were performed for 30 count and 90 count prescriptions, incorporating shipping fees. Data analysis employed volume-adjusted calculations to estimate Medicare cost savings.Results: The analysis indicated potential annual Medicare cost savings of 134 million. Naproxen Sodium ER also demonstrated significant savings, with an estimated reduction of $33 million in costs compared to Medicare’s rates. These findings highlight the potential for substantial cost savings by addressing inefficiencies in Medicare Part D’s current pricing models for high-utilization drugs.Conclusion: Integrating MCCPDC's transparent pricing model into Medicare Part D could substantially reduce costs, improve medication adherence, and alleviate the financial burden on beneficiaries managing chronic pain and inflammation. Physicians play a critical role in this process by informing their patients about alternative pricing models, such as those offered by MCCPDC, to help them access affordable medications. Implementing such a model could serve as a cornerstone for broader healthcare reforms aimed at enhancing affordability in the U.S. healthcare system