Browsing by Subject "Neural regulation"

Now showing 1 - 4 of 4
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Cracking the Code: The Role of Peripheral Nervous System Signaling in Fracture Repair
    (Springer, 2024) Morris, Ashlyn J.; Parker, Reginald S.; Nazzal, Murad K.; Natoli, Roman M.; Fehrenbacher, Jill C.; Kacena, Melissa A.; White, Fletcher A.; Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine
    Purpose of review: The traditionally understated role of neural regulation in fracture healing is gaining prominence, as recent findings underscore the peripheral nervous system's critical contribution to bone repair. Indeed, it is becoming more evident that the nervous system modulates every stage of fracture healing, from the onset of inflammation to repair and eventual remodeling. Recent findings: Essential to this process are neurotrophins and neuropeptides, such as substance P, calcitonin gene-related peptide, and neuropeptide Y. These molecules fulfill key roles in promoting osteogenesis, influencing inflammation, and mediating pain. The sympathetic nervous system also plays an important role in the healing process: while local sympathectomies may improve fracture healing, systemic sympathetic denervation impairs fracture healing. Furthermore, chronic activation of the sympathetic nervous system, often triggered by stress, is a potential impediment to effective fracture healing, marking an important area for further investigation. The potential to manipulate aspects of the nervous system offers promising therapeutic possibilities for improving outcomes in fracture healing. This review article is part of a series of multiple manuscripts designed to determine the utility of using artificial intelligence for writing scientific reviews.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Role of the Neurologic System in Fracture Healing: An Extensive Review
    (Springer, 2024) Parker, Reginald S.; Nazzal, Murad K.; Morris, Ashlyn J.; Fehrenbacher, Jill C.; White, Fletcher A.; Kacena, Melissa A.; Natoli, Roman M.; Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine
    Purpose of review: Despite advances in orthopedics, there remains a need for therapeutics to hasten fracture healing. However, little focus is given to the role the nervous system plays in regulating fracture healing. This paucity of information has led to an incomplete understanding of fracture healing and has limited the development of fracture therapies that integrate the importance of the nervous system. This review seeks to illuminate the integral roles that the nervous system plays in fracture healing. Recent findings: Preclinical studies explored several methodologies for ablating peripheral nerves to demonstrate ablation-induced deficits in fracture healing. Conversely, activation of peripheral nerves via the use of dorsal root ganglion electrical stimulation enhanced fracture healing via calcitonin gene related peptide (CGRP). Investigations into TLR-4, TrkB agonists, and nerve growth factor (NGF) expression provide valuable insights into molecular pathways influencing bone mesenchymal stem cells and fracture repair. Finally, there is continued research into the connections between pain and fracture healing with findings suggesting that anti-NGF may be able to block pain without affecting healing. This review underscores the critical roles of the central nervous system (CNS), peripheral nervous system (PNS), and autonomic nervous system (ANS) in fracture healing, emphasizing their influence on bone cells, neuropeptide release, and endochondral ossification. The use of TBI models contributes to understanding neural regulation, though the complex influence of TBI on fracture healing requires further exploration. The review concludes by addressing the neural connection to fracture pain. This review article is part of a series of multiple manuscripts designed to determine the utility of using artificial intelligence for writing scientific reviews.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    The Use of Artificial Intelligence in Writing Scientific Review Articles
    (Springer, 2024) Kacena, Melissa A.; Plotkin, Lilian I.; Fehrenbacher, Jill C.; Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine
    Purpose of review: With the recent explosion in the use of artificial intelligence (AI) and specifically ChatGPT, we sought to determine whether ChatGPT could be used to assist in writing credible, peer-reviewed, scientific review articles. We also sought to assess, in a scientific study, the advantages and limitations of using ChatGPT for this purpose. To accomplish this, 3 topics of importance in musculoskeletal research were selected: (1) the intersection of Alzheimer's disease and bone; (2) the neural regulation of fracture healing; and (3) COVID-19 and musculoskeletal health. For each of these topics, 3 approaches to write manuscript drafts were undertaken: (1) human only; (2) ChatGPT only (AI-only); and (3) combination approach of #1 and #2 (AI-assisted). Articles were extensively fact checked and edited to ensure scientific quality, resulting in final manuscripts that were significantly different from the original drafts. Numerous parameters were measured throughout the process to quantitate advantages and disadvantages of approaches. Recent findings: Overall, use of AI decreased the time spent to write the review article, but required more extensive fact checking. With the AI-only approach, up to 70% of the references cited were found to be inaccurate. Interestingly, the AI-assisted approach resulted in the highest similarity indices suggesting a higher likelihood of plagiarism. Finally, although the technology is rapidly changing, at the time of study, ChatGPT 4.0 had a cutoff date of September 2021 rendering identification of recent articles impossible. Therefore, all literature published past the cutoff date was manually provided to ChatGPT, rendering approaches #2 and #3 identical for contemporary citations. As a result, for the COVID-19 and musculoskeletal health topic, approach #2 was abandoned midstream due to the extensive overlap with approach #3. The main objective of this scientific study was to see whether AI could be used in a scientifically appropriate manner to improve the scientific writing process. Indeed, AI reduced the time for writing but had significant inaccuracies. The latter necessitates that AI cannot currently be used alone but could be used with careful oversight by humans to assist in writing scientific review articles.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Using AI to Write a Review Article Examining the Role of the Nervous System on Skeletal Homeostasis and Fracture Healing
    (Springer, 2024) Nazzal, Murad K.; Morris, Ashlyn J.; Parker, Reginald S.; White, Fletcher A.; Natoli, Roman M.; Fehrenbacher, Jill C.; Kacena, Melissa A.; Orthopaedic Surgery, School of Medicine
    Purpose of review: Three review articles have been written that discuss the roles of the central and peripheral nervous systems in fracture healing. While content among the articles is overlapping, there is a key difference between them: the use of artificial intelligence (AI). In one paper, the first draft was written solely by humans. In the second paper, the first draft was written solely by AI using ChatGPT 4.0 (AI-only or AIO). In the third paper, the first draft was written using ChatGPT 4.0 but the literature references were supplied from the human-written paper (AI-assisted or AIA). This project was done to evaluate the capacity of AI to conduct scientific writing. Importantly, all manuscripts were fact checked and extensively edited by all co-authors rendering the final manuscript drafts significantly different from the first drafts. Recent findings: Unsurprisingly, the use of AI decreased the time spent to write a review. The two AI-written reviews took less time to write than the human-written paper; however, the changes and editing required in all three manuscripts were extensive. The human-written paper was edited the most. On the other hand, the AI-only paper was the most inaccurate with inappropriate reference usage and the AI-assisted paper had the greatest incidence of plagiarism. These findings show that each style of writing presents its own unique set of challenges and advantages. While AI can theoretically write scientific reviews, from these findings, the extent of editing done subsequently, the inaccuracy of the claims it makes, and the plagiarism by AI are all factors to be considered and a primary reason why it may be several years into the future before AI can present itself as a viable alternative for traditional scientific writing.