Search

Recent evidence shows that US politicians' conception of honesty has undergone a bifurcation, with authentic but evidence-free "belief-speaking" becoming more prominent and differentiated from evidence-based "fact-speaking". Here we examine the downstream consequences of those two ways of conceiving honesty by investigating user engagement with fact-speaking and belief-speaking texts by members of the US Congress on Twitter (now X). We measure the conceptions of honesty of a sample of tweets and replies using computational text processing, and check whether the conceptions of honesty in the tweets align with those in their replies. We find that the conceptions of honesty used in replies align with those of the tweets, suggesting a "contagion". Notably, this contagion replicates under controlled experimental conditions. Our study highlights the crucial role of political leaders in setting the tone of the conversation on social media. The concept of honesty among US politicians has been split into two forms: evidence-based "fact-speaking" and intuition-based "belief-speaking." Here, the authors find that replies to US politicians' tweets mirrored the form used. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background/Objectives: Patients with hematologic malignancy (HM) often experience high rates of thrombocytopenia, thrombocytopathy, anemia, leukopenia, and coagulopathy, which can significantly increase the risk of procedural and postoperative complications. This study aimed to evaluate the safety and outcomes of percutaneous dilatational tracheostomy (PDT) in critically ill patients with HM. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included patients with HM who underwent PDT between 2012 and 2023 at a tertiary academic center. The primary outcome was early (7-day) bleeding complications rate. Secondary outcomes included PDT-related mortality, and mortality at 1 week, 30 days, and 1 year. Analyses were performed using a propensity-matched cohort to ensure balanced comparisons between groups. Results: Of the 1627 patients included in the analysis, 65 (4%) had HM. Patients with HM had a significantly higher Charlson comorbidity index and exhibited significantly higher rates of thrombocytopenia (platelet count < 100,000/mcL) compared to those without HM (8.0 [IQR 5.0–11.3] vs. 5.0 [IQR 2.0–7.0], p < 0.001; and 49.2% vs. 5.0%, p < 0.001, respectively). After propensity score matching, the one-week mortality rate was significantly higher in the HM group (23.4% vs. 4.3%, p = 0.007). However, the rates of intraoperative and bleeding complications as well as one-year mortality rates were similar between the groups. Conclusions: PDT can be safely performed in critically ill patients with HM. However, these patients exhibit high early mortality rates following the procedure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The practice of microtargeting in politics, involving tailoring persuasive messages to individuals based on personal vulnerabilities, has raised manipulation concerns. As microtargeting's persuasive benefits are well-established and its use facilitated by AI tools and personality-inference models, ethical and regulatory concerns are magnified. Here, we explore countering microtargeting effects by creating a warning signal deployed when users encounter personality-tailored political ads. Three studies evaluated the effectiveness of warning "popups" against potential microtargeting by comparing persuasiveness of targeted vs. non-targeted messages with and without popups. Using within subject-designs, Studies 1 (N = 666), 2a (N = 432), and 2b (N = 669) reveal a targeting effect, with targeted ads deemed more persuasive than non-targeted ones. More important, the presence of a warning popup had no meaningful impact on persuasiveness. Overall, across the three studies, personality-targeted ads were significantly more persuasive than non-targeted ones, and this advantage persisted despite warnings. Given the focus on transparency in initiatives like the EU's AI Act, our finding that warnings have little effect has potential policy implications., Competing Interests: Competing interests: The authors declare no competing interest., (© 2025. The Author(s).)

The generation and distribution of hyper-partisan content on social media has gained millions of exposure across platforms, often allowing malevolent actors to influence and disrupt democracies. The spread of this content is facilitated by real users' engaging with it on platforms. The current study tests the efficacy of an 'inoculation' intervention via six online survey-based experiments in the UK and US. Experiments 1-3 (total N = 3276) found that the inoculation significantly reduced self-reported engagement with polarising stimuli. However, Experiments 4-6 (total N = 1878) found no effects on participants' self-produced written text discussing the topic. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of the literature on polarisation and previous interventions to reduce engagement with disinformation., Competing Interests: Competing interests: YouGov UK undertook the fieldwork for Experiments 1 and 2 of this project free of charge. Fintan Smith is a former employee of YouGov. YouGov had no input on the formulation, design or any other specifics of the experiment, and does in no way endorse any of the views expressed in this paper. Other authors declare no competing interests., (© 2025. The Author(s).)