Beatriz Pardal-Pelaez’s research while affiliated with University of Salamanca and other places

Introduction: Algorithmic bias in systematic reviews that use automatic screening is a major challenge in the application of AI in health sciences. This article presents preliminary findings from the project titled Identification, Reporting, and Mitigation of Algorithmic Bias in Systematic Reviews with AI-Assisted Screening: Systematic Review and Development of a Checklist for its Evaluation registered in PROSPERO with the registration number CRD420251036600 (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/view/CRD420251036600). The results presented here are preliminary and part of ongoing work. Objective: To synthesize knowledge about the taxonomies of algorithmic bias, reporting, relationships with classical biases, and use of visualizations in AI-supported systematic reviews in health sciences. Methods: A specific literature review was conducted, focusing on systematic reviews, conceptual frameworks, and reporting standards for bias in AI in healthcare, as well as studies cataloguing detec-tion and mitigation strategies, with an emphasis on taxonomies, transparency practices, and visu-al/illustrative tools. Results: A mature body of work describes stage-based taxonomies and mitigation methods for algo-rithmic bias in general clinical AI. Common improvements in reporting and transparency (e.g. CON-SORT-AI, SPIRIT-AI) are described. However, there is a notable absence of direct application to AI-automated screening of systematic reviews or empirical analyses of the interactions of biases with classical biases at the review level. Visualization techniques, such as bias heatmaps and pipe dia-grams, are available, but have not been adapted to review workflows. Conclusions: There are fundamental methodologies to identify and mitigate algorithmic bias in AI in health, but significant gaps remain in the understanding and operationalization of these frameworks within AI-assisted systematic reviews. Future research should address this translational gap to ensure transparency, fairness, and methodological rigor in the synthesis of evidence.

Introduction Inappropriate authorship practices, including gift, guest, and ghost authorship, are a recognized problem in biomedical and basic science publishing. These behaviors undermine research integrity, distort attribution of credit and responsibility, and threaten public trust in scientific literature. Identifying the definitions, prevalence, manifestations, consequences, detection, and prevention of inappropriate authorship is critical for maintaining ethical and scientific standards. Objectives The objective of this analysis was to systematically examine scientific literature published since 2000 that defines and differentiates gift, guest, and ghost authorship in biomedical and basic science publications, reports their frequency and manifestations, analyzes their ethical, scientific, and public health consequences, describes detection and prevention methods, and documents real cases through quantitative or qualitative approaches. Method A structured review of relevant scientific literature was performed. Studies included primary research, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses explicitly addressing definitions, prevalence, consequences, detection strategies, prevention measures, and documented cases of inappropriate authorship in biomedical and basic science publication contexts. Methods analyzed included large-scale cross-sectional surveys, analyses of retraction databases, integrative reviews, and institutional audits, covering multiple countries and journal types. Results The review found that the unethical assignment of authorship is common, with gift/honorary authorship affecting 20–60% of publications, and ghost authorship 5–10%, with higher rates reported in some regions and disciplines. Over 700 cases of authorship-related retractions have been documented. The main detection methods were anonymous surveys of authors and audits of contribution statements. Preventive strategies included stronger editorial policies, explicit contribution taxonomies, author agreements, and research ethics training. Conclusions Inappropriate authorship practices remain frequent and pose significant ethical, scientific, and public health risks. While empirical evidence supports the use of prevention and detection measures, persistent challenges exist in ensuring accurate authorship attribution. Enhanced policy implementation and international standards are needed to mitigate these risks and promote research integrity.

Introduction: Postoperative hypocalcemia is a common complication of total thyroidectomy, primarily due to inadvertent injury or removal of the parathyroid glands. Near-infrared autofluorescence (NIRAF) has emerged as an intraoperative tool for real-time gland identification without the use of contrast agents, potentially reducing this complication. Two main modalities exist: camera-based (non-contact) systems and contact probe-based systems, but their comparative clinical effectiveness remains unclear. Objective: To compare the effectiveness of camera-based versus contact parathyroid autofluorescence systems in reducing the prevalence of hypocalcemia secondary to hypoparathyroidism in patients un-dergoing total thyroidectomy. Methods: A systematic review was conducted following PRISMA guidelines. Included studies consisted of randomized clinical trials, meta-analyses, and retrospective cohorts involving patients undergoing total thyroidectomy, with explicit hypocalcemia outcomes. Results: Among the 10 analyzed studies, several demonstrated that NIRAF significantly reduces tran-sient hypocalcemia compared to conventional approaches. However, no study directly compared camera-based and contact systems. Camera-based systems were studied more frequently. Some reports showed a reduction in transient hypocalcemia rates of up to 17% compared to controls. Conclusions: Current evidence supports the general use of NIRAF in reducing postoperative hypocalce-mia after total thyroidectomy, particularly for transient cases. However, there is no direct clinical eviden-ce comparing contact and camera-based systems. Comparative clinical trials are needed to determine their relative efficacy.