ReviewKorean journal of radiology2023
Reporting Quality of Research Studies on AI Applications in Medical Images According to the CLAIM Guidelines in a Radiology Journal With a Strong Prominence in Asia.
Review in Korean journal of radiology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- A 25-Year Retrospective of the Use of AI for Diagnosing Acute Stroke: Systematic Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Pooled it
- The Current Status and Evaluation of Artificial Intelligence in Bladder Cancer: Clinical Applications and Research.Computational and structural biotechnology journal · 2026Review
- Adherence to the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM): an umbrella review with a comprehensive two-level analysis.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- Response to "Artificial Intelligence Combined With Chest Radiography: New Hope for the Opportunistic Screening for Osteoporosis".Korean journal of radiology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveWe aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of research articles that applied deep learning to medical imaging. Using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) guidelines and a journal with prominence in Asia as a sample, we intended to provide an insight into reporting quality in the Asian region and establish a journal-specific audit. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 38 articles published in the
resultsOf the 42 items in the CLAIM guidelines, 12 items (29%) were satisfied by ≤ 50% of the included articles. None of the studies reported handling missing data (item #13). Only one study respectively presented the use of de-identification methods (#12), intended sample size (#19), robustness or sensitivity analysis (#30), and full study protocol (#41). Of the studies, 35% reported the selection of data subsets (#10), 40% reported registration information (#40), and 50% measured inter and intrarater variability (#18). No significant changes were observed in the rates of adherence to these 12 items before and after December 2020.
conclusionThe reporting quality of artificial intelligence studies according to CLAIM guidelines, in our study sample, showed room for improvement. We recommend that the authors and reviewers have a solid understanding of the relevant reporting guidelines and ensure that the essential elements are adequately reported when writing and reviewing the manuscripts for publication.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.