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.
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.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of a Framework for Evaluating Large Language Model Safety and Reliability: a Proof-of-Concept Evaluation.Journal of medical systems · 2026Article
- Reporting Quality of Large Language Model Studies: A Cross-Sectional Audit of High-Ranking Radiology and Medical Imaging Journals.Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Multiturn Large Language Model-Based Conversational Agents for Patients With Cancer and Caregivers: Scoping Review.JMIR cancer · 2026Article
- Review
- Do General-Purpose Multimodal Large Language Models Really See Radiologic Images or Rely on Text?Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Radiology Research and Publishing Across 2025-2026: Perspectives FromKorean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- AI in primary care - a general practitioner's bucket list.The European journal of general practice · 2025Article
- Minimum Reporting Items for Clear Evaluation of Accuracy Reports of Large Language Models in Healthcare (MI-CLEAR-LLM): 2025 Updates.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Review
- Accuracy of Large Language Models in Detecting Cases Requiring Immediate Reporting in Pediatric Radiology: A Feasibility Study Using Publicly Available Clinical Vignettes.Korean journal of radiology · 2025Article
- Diagnostic performance of large language models on the NEJM image challenge: a comparative study with human evaluators and the impact of prompt engineering.Frontiers in medicine · 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
5 authors.
Funding
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
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.