We have carefully read and evaluated the letter writ¬ten by Drs Mungmunpuntipantip and Wiwanitkit regarding our article published in the July issue of Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal.
Background: Transthyretin (TTR), also known as prealbumin, has been suggested as an indicator of protein and nutritional status.
Objective: The aim of this study was to examine the maternal and umbilical cord (UC) TTR in relation to intrauterine growth, and the serum TTR of preterm infants in relation to nutritional status and growth.
Methods: After application of exclusion criteria, 49 preterm infants (mean gestational age and birth-weight 32.9±2.9 weeks and 1822±556 g) were included in the study. Transthyretin was sampled at birth and on days 14, 28 or at discharge with growth parameters and nutritional laboratories.
Results: Mean UC and maternal TTR were positively correlated (8.5±2.4 mg/dL and 20.4±7.0 mg/dL, r=0.31, P=0.07). Umbilical cord TTR was neither an index of maturity nor of intrauterine growth. Umbilical cord TTR was higher in females (9.4±2.6 versus 7.6±1.8 mg/dL, P=0.015). Maternal TTR was lower in twin pregnancies (16.8±4.9 versus 22.5±7.3 mg/dL, P=0.007). Although TTR levels gradually increased over time in correlation with post-menstrual and chronological ages (r=0.24, P=0.011 and r=0.40, P<0.001, respectively), there was no correlation to weight gain (r=0.10, P=0.41), nutritional status, protein intake, or laboratories. The only significant correlations were between TTR and glucose and triglycerides levels (r=0.51, P<0.001 for both).
Conclusions: Although TTR levels increased over time, we could not demonstrate significant correlations between TTR and indices of the nutritional status in preterm infants at birth or during the neonatal course.
Introduction: When authorship disputes arise in academic publishing, research institutions may be asked to investigate the circumstances. We evaluated the association between the prevalence of misattributed authorship and trust in the institution involved.
Methods: We measured trust using a newly validated Opinion on the Institution’s Research and Publication Values (OIRPV) scale (range 1–4). Mayer and Davies’ Organizational Trust for Management Instrument served as control. Association between publication misconduct, gender, institution type, policies, and OIRPV-derived Trust Scores were evaluated.
Results: A total of 197 responses were analyzed. Increased reporting of authorship misconduct, such as gift authorship, author displacement within the authors’ order on the byline, and ghost authorship, were associated with low Trust Scores (P<0.001). Respondents from institutions whose administration had made known (declared or published) their policy on authorship in academic publications awarded the highest Trust Scores (median 3.06, interquartile range 2.25 to 3.56). Only 17.8% favored their administration as the best authority to investigate authorship dispute honestly. Of those who did not list the administration as their preferred option for resolving disputes, 58.6% (95/162) provided a Trust Score <2.5, which conveys mistrust in the institution.
Conclusions: Increased reporting of publication misconducts such as gift authorship, author displacement within the order of the authors’ byline, and ghost authorship was associated with lower Trust Scores in the research institutions. Institutions that made their policies known were awarded the highest Trust Scores. Our results question whether the research institutions’ administrations are the appropriate authority for clarifying author disputes in all cases.
In their article “Authorship Disputes in Scholarly Biomedical Publications and Trust in the Research Institution” in the July 2023 issue of RMMJ, Ashkenazi and Olsha examined the association between the prevalence of misattributed authorship and trust in the institution analyzing misconduct in their scholarly publications. The authors, appropriately, include “gift authorship” as one of the three principal deviations from appropriate authorship choices that they examined. In essence, gift or honorary authorship is listing an author on a scholarly publication for which that person’s contribution did not justify assigning authorship. This behavior has become commonplace.
We would like to thank Professor Marshall Lichtman for his letter, his interesting proposal, and using this venue to promote discussion of the topic. Professor Lichtman proposed a numerical calculation for authorship based on the authors’ perceptions of their relative contribution to a scientific publication, an idea also suggested by Jozsef Kovacs. The only limitation imposed by this system is that the total of all authors’ fractional contributions to any one publication equals no more than one. Lichtman’s interesting proposal serves as a disincentive to offer gift authorship to colleagues whose contributions were minimal, if they contributed at all.
It has been the policy of Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal to limit the number of editorials published. However, silence and standing on the sidelines is not an option in light of the atrocities and inhumanity we witnessed on October 7. The savagery of the Hamas massacre was executed indiscriminately upon children, women, older people (some of whom are Holocaust survivors), infants, and even medical professionals caring for the casualties. Currently, there are about 230 women, men, children, and babies being held hostage by Hamas; among them are cancer patients and others with serious disorders, doctors, and other medical professionals. We cannot rest and must address the plight of our hostages who are being held by terrorists motivated by hatred and showing no respect for life, whether that of their enemies, their own people, or even themselves. ...
Late-onset nasolacrimal duct obstruction (NLDO) as a result of inflammatory processes causing dacryostenosis is a common entity affecting mostly women. While a few mechanisms have been suggested as contributors to the expression of NLDO, the trigger for the inflammation remains mostly unknown. Familial predilection for this condition has not been previously reported. We present two families with multiple individuals affected with congenital or late-onset NLDO, describe the signs and symptoms of the affected individuals, and explore their medical history for any contributing factors. Family A, spanning four generations, included 7 female patients affected by late-onset NLDO. Family B, spanning two generations, included 8 individuals affected by either congenital or late-onset NLDO. This case series suggests a familial predisposition to NLDO, apparently with an autosomal dominant inheritance pattern. Further studies are needed to elucidate the molecular basis of this genetic predisposition.
The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines were elaborated to allow authors of such papers to identify quality articles for inclusion in their scholarly work. However, we have identified several issues that point to an over-reliance on the PRISMA guidelines. Firstly, we question the rigor of implementation by authors and the rigor of verification by peer reviewers and editors, and whether they have screened papers to ensure adherence to the PRISMA guidelines. Secondly, we have identified cases where the PRISMA criteria led to as much as 99.97% of the published literature being ignored, suggesting that valid publications meeting these criteria might be at risk of being ignored. Thirdly, we have noted that exclusion is not only a quantitative problem—it is also a qualitative one, since the screening procedure groups all non-conforming literature into one basket. Fourthly, we have noted that seven copies of the PRISMA guidelines exist. This being the case, which one should be cited? To replace over-reliance on PRISMA screening, we encourage authors, peer reviewers, and editors to publish systematic reviews and meta-analyses that respect the dual criteria of scientific plausibility and diversity of included papers.
Objective: Starvation in early life can cause poor bone health and metabolic aberrations in bone minerals, leading to abnormal bone development. Holocaust survivors have been exposed to starvation and malnutrition before and during World War II. This paper aims to provide the current state of knowledge on the osteoporosis risk in Holocaust survivors and their descendants.
Methods: The PubMed and Scopus databases were searched. Papers that reported original data on the risk of osteoporosis in Holocaust survivors and in their offspring were included in the study.
Results: Ten studies were included in this review. The majority of studies were case-control ones (n=7) versus two self-reported and one longitudinal study. Despite the limited cohort numbers and the small number of studies in the literature, the data showed a potential increased risk of osteoporosis in Holocaust survivors and especially in their descendants.
Conclusions: The review of these studies showed a higher prevalence of osteoporosis among Holocaust survivors and their offspring. Knowledge of the trans-generational inheritance of osteoporosis in the descendants of Holocaust survivors should increase the awareness of primary care health workers on osteoporosis screening and early diagnosis and implementation of preventive measures, including adequate vitamin D and calcium supplementation, and pharmacological treatment.
