Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39430802›Full record

ArticleJAMIA open2024

CALIFRAME: a proposed method of calibrating reporting guidelines with FAIR principles to foster reproducibility of AI research in medicine.

Kirubel Biruk Shiferaw, Irina Balaur, Danielle Welter, Dagmar Waltemath, Atinkut Alamirrew Zeleke

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMIA open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Kirubel Biruk ShiferawDepartment of Medical Informatics, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald D-17475, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7411-1411
Irina BalaurLuxembourg Centre for Systems Biology, University of Luxembourg, Belvaux L-4367, Luxembourg.
Danielle WelterLuxembourg National Data Service, Esch-sur-Alzette L-4362, Luxembourg.
Dagmar WaltemathDepartment of Medical Informatics, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald D-17475, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5886-5563
Atinkut Alamirrew ZelekeDepartment of Medical Informatics, Institute for Community Medicine, University Medicine Greifswald, Greifswald D-17475, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Procedural and reporting guidelines are crucial in framing scientific practices and communications among researchers and the broader community. These guidelines aim to ensure transparency, reproducibility, and reliability in scientific research. Despite several methodological frameworks proposed by various initiatives to foster reproducibility, challenges such as data leakage and reproducibility remain prevalent. Recent studies have highlighted the transformative potential of incorporating the FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, and Reusable) principles into workflows, particularly in contexts like software and machine learning model development, to promote open science. Objective: This study aims to introduce a comprehensive framework, designed to calibrate existing reporting guidelines against the FAIR principles. The goal is to enhance reproducibility and promote open science by integrating these principles into the scientific reporting process. Methods: We employed the "Best fit" framework synthesis approach which involves systematically reviewing and synthesizing existing frameworks and guidelines to identify best practices and gaps. We then proposed a series of defined workflows to align reporting guidelines with FAIR principles. A use case was developed to demonstrate the practical application of the framework. Results: The integration of FAIR principles with established reporting guidelines through the framework effectively bridges the gap between FAIR metrics and traditional reporting standards. The framework provides a structured approach to enhance the findability, accessibility, interoperability, and reusability of scientific data and outputs. The use case demonstrated the practical benefits of the framework, showing improved data management and reporting practices. Discussion: The framework addresses critical challenges in scientific research, such as data leakage and reproducibility issues. By embedding FAIR principles into reporting guidelines, the framework ensures that scientific outputs are more transparent, reliable, and reusable. This integration not only benefits researchers by improving data management practices but also enhances the overall scientific process by promoting open science and collaboration. Conclusion: The proposed framework successfully combines FAIR principles with reporting guidelines, offering a robust solution to enhance reproducibility and open science. This framework can be applied across various contexts, including software and machine learning model development stages, to foster a more transparent and collaborative scientific environment.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencecalibrationFAIR principlesmachine learningmedicinereporting guidelines

Identifiers

PMID39430802
PMCPMC11488973

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.