Visceral leishmaniasis (VL) is a vector borne zoonotic disease endemic in humans and dogs in Brazil. Due to the increased risk of human infection secondary to the presence of infected dogs, public health measures in Brazil mandate testing and culling of infected dogs. Despite this important relationship between human and canine infection, little is known about what makes the dog reservoir progress to clinical illness, significantly tied to infectiousness to sand flies. Dogs in endemic areas of Brazil are exposed to many tick-borne pathogens, which are likely to alter the immune environment and thus control of L. infantum. A cross-sectional study of 223 dogs from an area of Natal, in the Rio Grande do Norte, Brazil, were studied to determine the association between comorbid tick-borne disease and Leishmania infection in this endemic area. The risk of Leishmania seropositivity was 1.68× greater in dogs with tick-borne disease seropositivity compared to those without (Adjusted RR: 1.68, 95% CI: 1.09–2.61, P = 0.019). A longitudinal study of 214 hunting dogs in the USA was conducted to determine the causal relationship between infection with tick-borne diseases and progression of VL. Hunting dogs were evaluated three times across a full tick season to detect incident infection with tick-borne diseases. A logistic regression model with generalized estimating equations to estimate the parameters was used to determine how exposure to tick-borne disease altered VL progression over these three time points when controlling for other variables. Dogs infected with three or more tick-borne diseases were 11× more likely to be associated with progression to clinical VL than dogs with no tick-borne disease (Adjusted RR: 11.64, 95% CI: 1.22–110.99, P = 0.03). Dogs with exposure to both Leishmania spp. and tick-borne diseases were five times more likely to die during the study period (RR: 4.85, 95% CI: 1.65–14.24, P = 0.0051). Comorbid tick-borne diseases dramatically increased the likelihood that a dog had clinical L. infantum infection, making them more likely to transmit infection to sand flies and people. As an important consequence, reduction of tick-borne disease exposure through topical or oral insecticides may be an important way to reduce progression and transmissibility of Leishmania infection from the canine reservoir to people.

Background: Both incidence and geographical range of tick-borne disease has increased across the USA. Similar to people, dogs are hosts for Anaplasma spp., Babesia spp., Ehrlichia spp. and Borrelia burgdorferi. Dogs also share our homes and beds, making them both a sentinel for the ticks in our backyards but also increasing our exposure to ticks. Measures to better track, prevent, and/or treat tick-borne diseases in companion animals can lead to better control and prevention of human tick-borne disease. This study identifies demographic and co-infection risk factors for canine seropositivity to tick-borne infections in a cohort of hunting dogs across the USA. Results: Human patterns of tick-borne disease co-infection in the USA have been predominantly driven by the geographical distribution of the tick vector. Dogs who tested seropositive for Anaplasma spp. were 1.40 times more likely (P = 0.0242) to also test seropositive for Babesia spp. and vice versa (1.60 times more likely, P = 0.0014). Dogs living in the West had 5% lower risk (P = 0.0001) for Ehrlichia spp. seropositivity compared to other regions. Controlling for age and Anaplasma spp. seroprevalence, dogs in all three other regions were 2.30 times more likely (P = 0.0216) to test seropositive for B. burgdorferi than dogs in the West. Dogs seropositive for B. burgdorferi were 1.60 times more likely (P = 0.0473) to be seropositive for Anaplasma spp. Conclusions: Tick geographical distributions have a prominent impact on the regional distribution of hunting dog exposure to tick-borne diseases. Education concerning regional tick prevalence and disease risk is important for everyone, but particularly dog owners, regarding ticks in their region and protection from infection and co-infection of tick-borne pathogens as they travel or move with their dogs. Dogs are sentinel species for human exposure to ticks, and as such surveillance of canine tick-borne infections and understanding the probability that these infections might be seen together as co-infections helps predict emerging areas where people are more likely to be exposed as well.

Purpose of Review: There were two primary purposes to our reviews. First, to provide an update to the scientific community about the impacts of COVID-19 on musculoskeletal health. Second, was to determine the value of using a large language model, ChatGPT 4.0, in the process of writing a scientific review article. To accomplish these objectives, we originally set out to write three review articles on the topic using different methods to produce the initial drafts of the review articles. The first review article was written in the traditional manner by humans, the second was to be written exclusively using ChatGPT (AI-only or AIO), and the third approach was to input the outline and references selected by humans from approach 1 into ChatGPT, using the AI to assist in completing the writing (AI-assisted or AIA). All review articles were extensively fact-checked and edited by all co-authors leading to the final drafts of the manuscripts, which were significantly different from the initial drafts. Recent Findings: Unfortunately, during this process, it became clear that approach 2 was not feasible for a very recent topic like COVID-19 as at the time, ChatGPT 4.0 had a cutoff date of September 2021 and all articles published after this date had to be provided to ChatGPT, making approaches 2 and 3 virtually identical. Therefore, only two approaches and two review articles were written (human and AI-assisted). Here we found that the human-only approach took less time to complete than the AI-assisted approach. This was largely due to the number of hours required to fact-check and edit the AI-assisted manuscript. Of note, the AI-assisted approach resulted in inaccurate attributions of references (about 20%) and had a higher similarity index suggesting an increased risk of plagiarism. Summary: The main aim of this project was to determine whether the use of AI could improve the process of writing a scientific review article. Based on our experience, with the current state of technology, it would not be advised to solely use AI to write a scientific review article, especially on a recent topic.