Background: Preprints are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. In December 2019, a novel coronavirus appeared in China, and since then, scientific production, including preprints, has drastically increased. In this study, we intend to evaluate how often preprints about COVID-19 were published in scholarly journals and cited. Methods: We searched the iSearch COVID-19 portfolio to identify all preprints related to COVID-19 posted on bioRxiv, medRxiv, and Research Square from January 1, 2020, to May 31, 2020. We used a custom-designed program to obtain metadata using the Crossref public API. After that, we determined the publication rate and made comparisons based on citation counts using non-parametric methods. Also, we compared the publication rate, citation counts, and time interval from posting on a preprint server to publication in a scholarly journal among the three different preprint servers. Results: Our sample included 5,061 preprints, out of which 288 were published in scholarly journals and 4,773 remained unpublished (publication rate of 5.7%). We found that articles published in scholarly journals had a significantly higher total citation count than unpublished preprints within our sample (p < 0.001), and that preprints that were eventually published had a higher citation count as preprints when compared to unpublished preprints (p < 0.001). As well, we found that published preprints had a significantly higher citation count after publication in a scholarly journal compared to as a preprint (p < 0.001). Our results also show that medRxiv had the highest publication rate, while bioRxiv had the highest citation count and shortest time interval from posting on a preprint server to publication in a scholarly journal. Conclusions: We found a remarkably low publication rate for preprints within our sample, despite accelerated time to publication by multiple scholarly journals. These findings could be partially attributed to the unprecedented surge in scientific production observed during the COVID-19 pandemic, which might saturate reviewing and editing processes in scholarly journals. However, our findings show that preprints had a significantly lower scientific impact, which might suggest that some preprints have lower quality and will not be able to endure peer-reviewing processes to be published in a peer-reviewed journal.

Latinx people living with HIV (PLWH) experience disparities in health outcomes and face unique barriers to care related to language, intersectional stigma, and immigration status. We aimed to explore the lived experience of Spanish-speaking Latinx PLWH in the nonurban South to better understand how to improve care for this minority language population. We conducted semistructured interviews with 22 participants (10 men, 10 women, 2 transgender women) who were recruited from a Ryan White HIV/AIDS program (RWHAP) and a community-based organization. Almost all participants were foreign born. Emerging themes included language barriers, cultural differences, inadequate interpreter services, HIV-related and intersectional stigma, isolation, and relationships as a source of support. These barriers may contribute to disparities in outcomes for Latinx PLWH. New interventions are needed to overcome barriers, foster community, and ensure culturally tailored models of care. Potential clinic-level interventions include the development of specialized training for RWHAP interpreters and inclusion of interpreters in care teams.

Semaglutide demonstrated inferior weight loss responses in patients with type 2 diabetes (T2D) compared to patients with obesity without T2D. The individualized metabolic surgery (IMS) score was validated to predict T2D remission after bariatric surgery. The parameters of the IMS are HbA1c (<7%), insulin use, T2D medications and T2D duration. We aim to assess weight loss outcomes of semaglutide based on IMS score in patients with obesity and T2D. This is a retrospective multicentered cohort study of patients with T2D and BMI≥ 27 kg/m² taking ≥1 mg of semaglutide recruited from January 2020 to December 2022. We excluded patients with a history of bariatric surgery or taking other anti-obesity medications. IMS was calculated at baseline and patients weight change was recorded at baseline, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months. IMS was classified as mild (0–24.9 points), moderate (25–94.9 points), and severe (95–180 points). Analysis was performed based on IMS score quartiles and combination of Mild-Moderate vs Severe categories. We performed mixed linear regression models including age, sex, and baseline weight to assess associations between IMS categories with total body weight loss percentage (TBWL%). We included 297 patients (42% female, mean age 62 ± 12 years) in the analysis. At 12 months, there was a stepwise decrease in weight loss outcomes when comparing patients by IMS quartiles (LS mean TBWL%± SE): 8.8 ± 0.8% vs 6.9 ± 0.8% vs 5.7 ± 0.9% vs 5.0 ± 0.8%. In the mixed linear model, patients in the mild-moderate category achieved significantly superior weight loss outcomes (LS mean TBWL± SE: −8.3 ± 0.7%) than patients in the severe category (−5.5 ± 0.6%; difference: −2.9, 95% CI: −5.2 to −0.5, p = 0.006) at 12 months. There was no significant difference in glycemic improvement regardless of IMS severity at baseline. In our cohort, lower IMS severity was associated with more weight loss in patients with obesity and T2D. Further studies are needed to understand T2D severity and its effect on semaglutide outcomes. Beyond payment to the research staff by 10.13039/100000871 Mayo Clinic , this research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.