This study aimed to assess the knowledge, attitudes, and intended practices of healthcare workers (HCWs) in Saudi Arabia towards ChatGPT, an artificial intelligence (AI) Chatbot, within the first three months after its launch. We also aimed to identify potential barriers to AI Chatbot adoption among healthcare professionals. A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 1057 HCWs in Saudi Arabia, distributed electronically via social media channels from 21 February to 6 March 2023. The survey evaluated HCWs’ familiarity with ChatGPT-3.5, their satisfaction, intended future use, and perceived usefulness in healthcare practice. Of the respondents, 18.4% had used ChatGPT for healthcare purposes, while 84.1% of non-users expressed interest in utilizing AI Chatbots in the future. Most participants (75.1%) were comfortable with incorporating ChatGPT into their healthcare practice. HCWs perceived the Chatbot to be useful in various aspects of healthcare, such as medical decision-making (39.5%), patient and family support (44.7%), medical literature appraisal (48.5%), and medical research assistance (65.9%). A majority (76.7%) believed ChatGPT could positively impact the future of healthcare systems. Nevertheless, concerns about credibility and the source of information provided by AI Chatbots (46.9%) were identified as the main barriers. Although HCWs recognize ChatGPT as a valuable addition to digital health in the early stages of adoption, addressing concerns regarding accuracy, reliability, and medicolegal implications is crucial. Therefore, due to their unreliability, the current forms of ChatGPT and other Chatbots should not be used for diagnostic or treatment purposes without human expert oversight. Ensuring the trustworthiness and dependability of AI Chatbots is essential for successful implementation in healthcare settings. Future research should focus on evaluating the clinical outcomes of ChatGPT and benchmarking its performance against other AI Chatbots.

Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) chatbots have recently gained use in medical practice by health care practitioners. Interestingly, the output of these AI chatbots was found to have varying degrees of hallucination in content and references. Such hallucinations generate doubts about their output and their implementation. Objective: The aim of our study was to propose a reference hallucination score (RHS) to evaluate the authenticity of AI chatbots’ citations. Methods: Six AI chatbots were challenged with the same 10 medical prompts, requesting 10 references per prompt. The RHS is composed of 6 bibliographic items and the reference’s relevance to prompts’ keywords. RHS was calculated for each reference, prompt, and type of prompt (basic vs complex). The average RHS was calculated for each AI chatbot and compared across the different types of prompts and AI chatbots. Results: Bard failed to generate any references. ChatGPT 3.5 and Bing generated the highest RHS (score=11), while Elicit and SciSpace generated the lowest RHS (score=1), and Perplexity generated a middle RHS (score=7). The highest degree of hallucination was observed for reference relevancy to the prompt keywords (308/500, 61.6%), while the lowest was for reference titles (169/500, 33.8%). ChatGPT and Bing had comparable RHS (β coefficient=–0.069; P=.32), while Perplexity had significantly lower RHS than ChatGPT (β coefficient=–0.345; P<.001). AI chatbots generally had significantly higher RHS when prompted with scenarios or complex format prompts (β coefficient=0.486; P<.001). Conclusions: The variation in RHS underscores the necessity for a robust reference evaluation tool to improve the authenticity of AI chatbots. Further, the variations highlight the importance of verifying their output and citations. Elicit and SciSpace had negligible hallucination, while ChatGPT and Bing had critical hallucination levels. The proposed AI chatbots’ RHS could contribute to ongoing efforts to enhance AI’s general reliability in medical research.

Steroid-resistant nephrotic syndrome (SRNS) almost invariably progresses to end-stage renal disease. Although more than 50 monogenic causes of SRNS have been described, a large proportion of SRNS remains unexplained. Recently, it was discovered that mutations of NUP93 and NUP205, encoding 2 proteins of the inner ring subunit of the nuclear pore complex (NPC), cause SRNS. Here, we describe mutations in genes encoding 4 components of the outer rings of the NPC, namely NUP107, NUP85, NUP133, and NUP160, in 13 families with SRNS. Using coimmunoprecipitation experiments, we showed that certain pathogenic alleles weakened the interaction between neighboring NPC subunits. We demonstrated that morpholino knockdown of nup107, nup85, or nup133 in Xenopus disrupted glomerulogenesis. Re-expression of WT mRNA, but not of mRNA reflecting mutations from SRNS patients, mitigated this phenotype. We furthermore found that CRISPR/Cas9 knockout of NUP107, NUP85, or NUP133 in podocytes activated Cdc42, an important effector of SRNS pathogenesis. CRISPR/Cas9 knockout of nup107 or nup85 in zebrafish caused developmental anomalies and early lethality. In contrast, an in-frame mutation of nup107 did not affect survival, thus mimicking the allelic effects seen in humans. In conclusion, we discovered here that mutations in 4 genes encoding components of the outer ring subunits of the NPC cause SRNS and thereby provide further evidence that specific hypomorphic mutations in these essential genes cause a distinct, organ-specific phenotype.

Objectives: This study aimed to identify coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine perception, acceptance, confidence, hesitancy, and barriers among health care workers (HCWs).Methods: An online national cross-sectional pilot-validated questionnaire was self-administered by HCWs in Saudi Arabia, which is a nation with MERS-CoV experience. The main outcome variable was HCWs’ acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine candidates. The factors associated with vaccination acceptance were identified through a logistic regression analysis, and the level of anxiety was measured using a validated instrument to measure general anxiety levels.Results: Out of the 1512 HCWs who completed the study questionnaire—of which 62.4% were women—70% were willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines. A logistic regression analysis revealed that male HCWs (ORa = 1.551, 95% CI: 1.122–2.144), HCWs who believe in vaccine safety (ORa = 2.151; 95% CI: 1.708–2.708), HCWs who believe that COVID vaccines are the most likely way to stop the pandemic (ORa = 1.539; 95% CI: 1.259–1.881), and HCWs who rely on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention website for COVID 19 updates (ORa = 1.505, 95% CI: 1.125–2.013) were significantly associated with reporting a willingness to be vaccinated. However, HCWs who believed that the vaccines were rushed without evidence-informed testing were found to be 60% less inclined to accept COVID-19 vaccines (ORa = 0.394, 95% CI: 0.298–0.522).Conclusion: Most HCWs are willing to receive COVID-19 vaccines once they are available; the satisfactoriness of COVID-19 vaccination among HCWs is crucial because health professionals’ knowledge and confidence toward vaccines are important determining factors for not only their own vaccine acceptance but also recommendation for such vaccines to their patients.

Background: As the COVID-19 Delta variant has spread across the globe, healthcare workers’ (HCWs) knowledge, worries, and vaccine booster acceptance should be assessed. Methods: Online questionnaires aimed at HCWs in Saudi Arabia were distributed between 9 and 12 August 2021, aiming to evaluate HCWs’ perceptions and worries about the Delta variant as well as their feelings about receiving a booster-vaccine. Results: A total of 1279 HCWs participated, with 51.1% being physicians and 41.7% nurses. 92.5% were aware of the emergence of the Delta variant. Still, only 28.7% were found to have sufficient knowledge of the variant, and their level of worry about it was higher than their level of worry about the Alpha variant (2.32/5 versus 1.79/5). The main information sources cited by the participants were social media (50.5%), while 30.5% used scientific journals. Overall, 55.3% were willing to receive a vaccine booster, while one third would have preferred to receive a new mRNA vaccine specifically developed for the Delta variant. Factors associated with vaccine booster acceptance were receiving both vaccination doses (p = 0.008), believing that the Pfizer-BioNTech BNT162b2 vaccine is effective against variants (p < 0.001), and agreement that mixing/matching vaccines is effective against variants (p < 0.001). Conclusions: A high percentage of HCWs were aware of the Delta variant, but only a small fraction had decent quality of knowledge about it. The participants exhibited high worry levels and showed a modest acceptance of receiving a vaccine booster dose. These results should encourage public health officials to scale up educational efforts to disseminate reliable information about the different variants and provide recommendations about receiving a vaccine booster. Further research on methods to alleviate HCWs’ worries about emerging variants is warranted.