Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40465054›Full record

ArticleJournal of imaging informatics in medicine2026

Best Practices and Checklist for Reviewing Artificial Intelligence-Based Medical Imaging Papers: Classification.

Timothy L Kline, Felipe Kitamura, Daniel Warren, Ian Pan, Amine M Korchi, Neil Tenenholtz, Linda Moy, Judy Wawira Gichoya, Igor Santos, Kamyar Moradi and 10 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

20 authors.

Timothy L KlineDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA. kline.timothy@mayo.edu.
Felipe KitamuraBunkerhill Health, Palo Alto, CA, USA.
Daniel WarrenCarle College of Medicine University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA.
Ian PanImaging Center Onex, Groupe 3R, Geneva, Switzerland.
Amine M KorchiImaging Center Onex, Groupe 3R, Geneva, Switzerland.
Neil TenenholtzMicrosoft Research, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Linda MoyDepartment of Radiology, NYU School of Medicine, New York, NY, USA.
Judy Wawira GichoyaDepartment of Radiology, Emory University School of Medicine, Atlanta, GA, USA.
Igor SantosIonic Health, Porto, Portugal.
Kamyar MoradiJohns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA.
Atlas Haddadi AvvalDepartment of Radiology and Biomedical Imaging, University of California, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Dana AlkhulaifatChildren's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Steven L BlumerUPMC Children's Hospital, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Misha Ysabel HwangDe La Salle University, Manila, Luzon, Philippines.
Kim-Ann GitHospital Selayang, Batu Caves, Selangor, Malaysia.
Abishek ShroffGE Healthcare, JFWTC, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
Joseph StemberDepartment of Radiology, Neuroradiology Division Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, NY, USA.
Elad Walach, Aidoc, Tel Aviv, Israel.
George ShihDepartment of Radiology, Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA.
Steve G LangerDepartment of Radiology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN, USA.

Funding

X-RAY CRYSTALLOGRAPHYP30CA008748 · NCI · SLOAN-KETTERING INSTITUTE FOR CANCER RES · PI Hongbiao Carl Lekaye · 1985 to 2026
$347.4M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA008748
6 · The paper itself

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

Artificial IntelligenceChecklistDiagnostic ImagingHumansMachine LearningArtificial IntelligenceBest practicesChecklistClassificationMedical imagingPaper review

Identifiers

PMID40465054
PMCPMC13103157

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.