ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026
Best Practices and Checklist for Reviewing Artificial Intelligence-Based Medical Imaging Papers: Classification.
Article in Journal of imaging informatics in medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Cutaneous Thermography in Arthropathies: Quantitative Imaging, Machine Learning, and Clinical Translation.Journal of imaging · 2026Review
- Clinical validation of lightweight CNN architectures for reliable multi-class classification of lung cancer using histopathological imaging techniques.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Antenatal Care Utilization in Somalia, 2020 Somalia Demographic Health Survey.Journal of epidemiology and global health · 2025Article
- Utilizing Detectron2 for accurate and efficient colon cancer detection in histopathological images.Frontiers in bioengineering and biotechnology · 2025Article
- Deep Convolutional Neural Network for Accurate Classification of Myofibroblastic Lesions on Patch-Based Images.Head and neck pathology · 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
20 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Recent advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) methodologies and their application to medical imaging has led to an explosion of related research programs utilizing AI to produce state-of-the-art classification performance. Ideally, research culminates in dissemination of the findings in peer-reviewed journals. To date, acceptance or rejection criteria are often subjective; however, reproducible science requires reproducible review. The Machine Learning Education Sub-Committee of the Society for Imaging Informatics in Medicine (SIIM) has identified a knowledge gap and need to establish guidelines for reviewing these studies. This present work, written from the machine learning practitioner standpoint, follows a similar approach to our previous paper related to segmentation. In this series, the committee will address best practices to follow in AI-based studies and present the required sections with examples and discussion of requirements to make the studies cohesive, reproducible, accurate, and self-contained. This entry in the series focuses on image classification. Elements like dataset curation, data pre-processing steps, reference standard identification, data partitioning, model architecture, and training are discussed. Sections are presented as in a typical manuscript. The content describes the information necessary to ensure the study is of sufficient quality for publication consideration and, compared with other checklists, provides a focused approach with application to image classification tasks. The goal of this series is to provide resources to not only help improve the review process for AI-based medical imaging papers, but to facilitate a standard for the information that should be presented within all components of the research study.
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.