ArticleDiagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey)2024
Meta-research on reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence: are authors and reviewers encouraged enough in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals?
Article in Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Leading Towards a Translation Readiness Framework: A Systematic Review of Deep Learning Approaches for Eye Disease Diagnosis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Article
- MHub.ai: A Standardized Platform for Reproducible AI Research in Medical Imaging.Research square · 2026Article
- Reporting checklists: from a tool after publication to a tool before submission.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2026Article
- 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
- Bias in artificial intelligence for medical imaging: fundamentals, detection, avoidance, mitigation, challenges, ethics, and prospects.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Review
- Reporting checklists as compulsory supplements to artificial intelligence manuscript submissions.Diagnostic and interventional radiology (Ankara, Turkey) · 2025Article
- The policies on the use of large language models in radiological journals are lacking: a meta-research study.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- Explanation and Elaboration with Examples for CLEAR (CLEAR-E3): an EuSoMII Radiomics Auditing Group Initiative.European radiology experimental · 2024Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo determine how radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals encourage and mandate the use of reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence (AI) in their author and reviewer instructions.
methodsThe primary source of journal information and associated citation data used was the Journal Citation Reports (June 2023 release for 2022 citation data; Clarivate Analytics, UK). The first- and second-quartile journals indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Emerging Sources Citation Index were included. The author and reviewer instructions were evaluated by two independent readers, followed by an additional reader for consensus, with the assistance of automatic annotation. Encouragement and submission requirements were systematically analyzed. The reporting guidelines were grouped as AI-specific, related to modeling, and unrelated to modeling.
resultsOut of 102 journals, 98 were included in this study, and all of them had author instructions. Only five journals (5%) encouraged the authors to follow AI-specific reporting guidelines. Among these, three required a filled-out checklist. Reviewer instructions were found in 16 journals (16%), among which one journal (6%) encouraged the reviewers to follow AI-specific reporting guidelines without submission requirements. The proportions of author and reviewer encouragement for AI-specific reporting guidelines were statistically significantly lower compared with those for other types of guidelines (
conclusionThe findings indicate that AI-specific guidelines are not commonly encouraged and mandated (i.e., requiring a filled-out checklist) by these journals, compared with guidelines related to modeling and unrelated to modeling, leaving vast space for improvement. This meta-research study hopes to contribute to the awareness of the imaging community for AI reporting guidelines and ignite large-scale group efforts by all stakeholders, making AI research less wasteful. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: This meta-research highlights the need for improved encouragement of AI-specific guidelines in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals. This can potentially foster greater awareness among the AI community and motivate various stakeholders to collaborate to promote more efficient and responsible AI research reporting practices.
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.