ArticleModern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc2024
Reproducible Reporting of the Collection and Evaluation of Annotations for Artificial Intelligence Models.
Article in Modern pathology : an official journal of the United States and Canadian Academy of Pathology, Inc, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Artificial Intelligence Reporting Guidelines in Radiology: A Systematic Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- A Boveri perspective on cancer biomarker testing using artificial intelligence.NPJ precision oncology · 2026Review
- Agentic systems in computational pathology: architectures, evidence, and translational challenges.Journal of translational medicine · 2026Review
- Evaluation Frameworks for Clinical AI Incorporating Validation Strategies, Real-World Applicability, and Ethical Principles: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Early emergency department decision support for heart failure hospitalization using triage-level unstructured and structured data: a retrospective cohort study.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2026Article
- Medical Imaging Data Strategies for Catalyzing AI Medical Device Innovation.Journal of imaging informatics in medicine · 2025Article
- No Reproducibility, No Progress: Rethinking CT Benchmarking.Journal of imaging · 2025Article
- Prioritizing cases from a multi-institutional cohort for a dataset of pathologist annotations.Journal of pathology informatics · 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This work puts forth and demonstrates the utility of a reporting framework for collecting and evaluating annotations of medical images used for training and testing artificial intelligence (AI) models in assisting detection and diagnosis. AI has unique reporting requirements, as shown by the AI extensions to the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) and Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials (SPIRIT) checklists and the proposed AI extensions to the Standards for Reporting Diagnostic Accuracy (STARD) and Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Prediction model for Individual Prognosis or Diagnosis (TRIPOD) checklists. AI for detection and/or diagnostic image analysis requires complete, reproducible, and transparent reporting of the annotations and metadata used in training and testing data sets. In an earlier work by other researchers, an annotation workflow and quality checklist for computational pathology annotations were proposed. In this manuscript, we operationalize this workflow into an evaluable quality checklist that applies to any reader-interpreted medical images, and we demonstrate its use for an annotation effort in digital pathology. We refer to this quality framework as the Collection and Evaluation of Annotations for Reproducible Reporting of Artificial Intelligence (CLEARR-AI).
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.