ArticleInsights into imaging2024
The policies on the use of large language models in radiological journals are lacking: a meta-research study.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Large language models in neuroradiology: an international survey of awareness, applications, and concerns.Neuroradiology · 2026Article
- Can ChatGPT4-vision identify radiologic progression of multiple sclerosis on brain MRI?European radiology experimental · 2025Article
- Generative AI and large language models in nuclear medicine: current status and future prospects.Annals of nuclear medicine · 2024Review
- Mind the gap: A cross-sectional analysis of large language model guidance in emergency medicine journals.Digital healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveTo evaluate whether and how the radiological journals present their policies on the use of large language models (LLMs), and identify the journal characteristic variables that are associated with the presence.
methodsIn this meta-research study, we screened Journals from the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging Category, 2022 Journal Citation Reports, excluding journals in non-English languages and relevant documents unavailable. We assessed their LLM use policies: (1) whether the policy is present; (2) whether the policy for the authors, the reviewers, and the editors is present; and (3) whether the policy asks the author to report the usage of LLMs, the name of LLMs, the section that used LLMs, the role of LLMs, the verification of LLMs, and the potential influence of LLMs. The association between the presence of policies and journal characteristic variables was evaluated.
resultsThe LLM use policies were presented in 43.9% (83/189) of journals, and those for the authors, the reviewers, and the editor were presented in 43.4% (82/189), 29.6% (56/189) and 25.9% (49/189) of journals, respectively. Many journals mentioned the aspects of the usage (43.4%, 82/189), the name (34.9%, 66/189), the verification (33.3%, 63/189), and the role (31.7%, 60/189) of LLMs, while the potential influence of LLMs (4.2%, 8/189), and the section that used LLMs (1.6%, 3/189) were seldomly touched. The publisher is related to the presence of LLM use policies (p < 0.001).
conclusionThe presence of LLM use policies is suboptimal in radiological journals. A reporting guideline is encouraged to facilitate reporting quality and transparency. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: It may facilitate the quality and transparency of the use of LLMs in scientific writing if a shared complete reporting guideline is developed by stakeholders and then endorsed by journals. KEY POINTS: The policies on LLM use in radiological journals are unexplored. Some of the radiological journals presented policies on LLM use. A shared complete reporting guideline for LLM use is desired.
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.