Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40015560›Full record

SynthesisKorean journal of radiology2025

Adherence of Studies on Large Language Models for Medical Applications Published in Leading Medical Journals According to the MI-CLEAR-LLM Checklist.

Ji Su Ko, Hwon Heo, Chong Hyun Suh, Jeho Yi, Woo Hyun Shim

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Korean journal of radiology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing 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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. AI in primary care - a general practitioner's bucket list.The European journal of general practice · 2025
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. 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.

Ji Su Ko *Department of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0001-6589-2431
Hwon Heo *Department of Medical Science, Asan Medical Institute of Convergence Science and Technology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-6103-4680
Chong Hyun SuhDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea. chonghyunsuh@amc.seoul.kr.ORCID 0000-0002-4737-0530
Jeho YiAsan Medical Library, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0009-0002-2322-7454
Woo Hyun ShimDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Asan Medical Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea.ORCID 0000-0002-7251-2916

Funding

Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center 2024IP0060-1Korea Health Industry Development Institute HR20C0026NCIRD CDC HHS U01 IP000060
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the adherence of large language model (LLM)-based healthcare research to the Minimum Reporting Items for Clear Evaluation of Accuracy Reports of Large Language Models in Healthcare (MI-CLEAR-LLM) checklist, a framework designed to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of studies on the accuracy of LLMs for medical applications. MATERIALS AND

methodsA systematic PubMed search was conducted to identify articles on LLM performance published in high-ranking clinical medicine journals (the top 10% in each of the 59 specialties according to the 2023 Journal Impact Factor) from November 30, 2022, through June 25, 2024. Data on the six MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist items: 1) identification and specification of the LLM used, 2) stochasticity handling, 3) prompt wording and syntax, 4) prompt structuring, 5) prompt testing and optimization, and 6) independence of the test data-were independently extracted by two reviewers, and adherence was calculated for each item.

resultsOf 159 studies, 100% (159/159) reported the name of the LLM, 96.9% (154/159) reported the version, and 91.8% (146/159) reported the manufacturer. However, only 54.1% (86/159) reported the training data cutoff date, 6.3% (10/159) documented access to web-based information, and 50.9% (81/159) provided the date of the query attempts. Clear documentation regarding stochasticity management was provided in 15.1% (24/159) of the studies. Regarding prompt details, 49.1% (78/159) provided exact prompt wording and syntax but only 34.0% (54/159) documented prompt-structuring practices. While 46.5% (74/159) of the studies detailed prompt testing, only 15.7% (25/159) explained the rationale for specific word choices. Test data independence was reported for only 13.2% (21/159) of the studies, and 56.6% (43/76) provided URLs for internet-sourced test data.

conclusionAlthough basic LLM identification details were relatively well reported, other key aspects, including stochasticity, prompts, and test data, were frequently underreported. Enhancing adherence to the MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist will allow LLM research to achieve greater transparency and will foster more credible and reliable future studies.

Indexed as

ChecklistGuideline AdherencePeriodicals as TopicHumansLarge Language ModelsReproducibility of ResultsAdherenceArtificial intelligenceChatbotChecklistDeep learningGenerativeGuidelineLarge language modelLarge multimodal modelQualityReportingStandard

Identifiers

PMID40015560
PMCPMC11955383

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.