Read on Twitter
Many folks are retweeting this - but have you actually read as far as the section on "Psychological disorders and long COVID" which seems to be completely at odds with the rest of the review. 🤔
https://twitter.com/EricTopol/status/1719720220158574769
"...psychological and psychosomatic factors exert an indispensable role in the progression of long COVID..."
🤔
🤔
It also seems to (somewhat?) misquote current NICE guidance on ME/CFS, as recommending:
"energy management, personalized exercise or physical activity, personalized sleep management, and dietary management"
Or is this OK? 🤷♀️
"energy management, personalized exercise or physical activity, personalized sleep management, and dietary management"
Or is this OK? 🤷♀️
This on treatments for #LongCovid:
"For musculoskeletal pain, regular exercise was suggested to reduce pain and improve physical function."
No mention of PEM or the need to be cautious. 🤔
"For musculoskeletal pain, regular exercise was suggested to reduce pain and improve physical function."
No mention of PEM or the need to be cautious. 🤔
Then this stunning gem:
"It is remarkable that these physical manifestations are perhaps aggravated by psychological symptoms;
thus, psychotherapy interwoven with therapy of somatic consequences is of utmost importance to long COVID treatment." 🤔
"It is remarkable that these physical manifestations are perhaps aggravated by psychological symptoms;
thus, psychotherapy interwoven with therapy of somatic consequences is of utmost importance to long COVID treatment." 🤔
Was this review perhaps written by ChatGPT?
It seems more like a memory dump of all of PubMed!
It seems more like a memory dump of all of PubMed!
Also.... why is this published in the journal Signal Transduction and Targeted Therapy?
Is it because, as an open access journal in the Nature stable, folks will see and not question further?
Sorry - I'm in a bit of a skeptical mood at the mo!Nature.com
Is it because, as an open access journal in the Nature stable, folks will see and not question further?
Sorry - I'm in a bit of a skeptical mood at the mo!Nature.com
@TraceyABurgess ^^^
@TraceyABurgess Tracey, is this thread being hidden?
OMG - I'm shaking.
Just clicked on the orchid id of one of the authors... orcid.org/0000-0002-0470…
Just clicked on the orchid id of one of the authors... orcid.org/0000-0002-0470…
Paging @MicrobiomDigest 😬
OK. Now there is a discussion to be had about whether AI/LLMs should/can be used to write papers.
But surely it should be *clearly* declared if they are?
@Nature
But surely it should be *clearly* declared if they are?
@Nature
@Nature Yes. It certainly isn't clear that this paper uses LLMs in its construction.
@nature | Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use
nature.com/articles/d4158…
@nature | Tools such as ChatGPT threaten transparent science; here are our ground rules for their use
https://twitter.com/LarsSanderGreen/status/1719883681702236306
nature.com/articles/d4158…
@Nature I meant - it isn't *made* clear that this paper uses LLMs.
Re-threading...
https://twitter.com/_Lucibee/status/1719825158242721904
@threadreaderapp please unroll
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
