The global pandemic of coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) has led to unprecedented psychological stress on health workers (HCWs). We aimed to assess the psychological impact of COVID-19 on HCWs in comparison to the stress brought on by the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV) epidemic in Saudi Arabia. Between February 5th and 16th, 2020, 811 health-care workers (HCWs) of a tertiary care teaching hospital were invited to fill a questionnaire regarding concerns and worries about the novel coronavirus pandemic, along with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD-7) Anxiety Severity screening tool. Out of 582 HCWs who completed the survey questionnaire (response rate of 71.8%), about 40% were exposed previously to MERS-CoV infected or suspected patients during a previous hospital outbreak. While there were no COVID-19 cases reported yet in Saudi Arabia at the time of data collection, still, the anxiety level from COVID-19 was significantly higher than that from MERS-CoV or seasonal influenza: 41.1% were more worried about COVID-19, 41.4% were similarly worried about both MERS-CoV and COVID-19, and 17.5% were more stressed by the previous MERS-CoV hospital outbreak. The most frequent concern was transmitting the infection to family and friends (2.71/5) than to themselves only (2.57/5). Pandemic and epidemic infectious diseases such as COVID-19 or MERS-CoV impose a significant level of anxiety and stress on healthcare workers who are caring of infected patients, with their main concern being the risk of transmitting the infection to their families or to acquire it themselves. Therefore, optimizing the compliance of healthcare workers with the proper infection prevention and control measures is paramount during the infectious disease outbreak, to ensure their safety, to decrease the likelihood of getting infected or transmitting the infection to others, and consequently to alleviate their psychological stress and anxiety.

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.

Cytomegalovirus (CMV) infection is increasingly recognized in critically ill immunocompetent patients. Some studies have demonstrated an association between CMV disease and increased mortality rates, prolonged intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and nosocomial infections. However, there is a considerable controversy whether such association represents a causal relationship between CMV disease and unfavorable outcomes or just a marker of the severity of the critical illness. Detection of CMV using polymerase chain reaction and CMV antigenemia is the standard diagnostic approach. CMV may have variety of clinical manifestations reflecting the involvement of different organ systems. Treatment of CMV in critical care is challenging due to diagnostic challenge and drug toxicity, and building predictive model for CMV disease in critical care setting would be promising to identify patients at risk and starting prophylactic therapy. Our objective was to broadly review the current literature on the prevalence and incidence, clinical manifestations, potential limitations of different diagnostic modalities, prognosis, and therapeutic options of CMV disease in critically ill patients.

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.