ArticleJAMIA open2025
Assessing the quality of reporting in artificial intelligence/machine learning research for cardiac amyloidosis.
Article in JAMIA open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Despite the rapid development of AI in clinical medicine, reproducibility and methodological limitations hinder its clinical utility. In response, MINimum Information for Medical AI Reporting (MINIMAR) standards were introduced to enhance publication standards and reduce bias, but their application remains unexplored. In this review, we sought to assesses the quality of reporting in AI/ML studies of cardiac amyloidosis (CA) an increasingly important cause of heart failure. Materials and Methods: Using PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we performed a scoping review of English-language articles published through May 2023 which applied AI/ML techniques to diagnose or predict CA. Non-CA studies and those with selective feature sets were excluded. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data. In all, 20 studies met criteria and were assessed for adherence to MINIMAR standards. Results: The studies showed variable compliance with MINIMAR. Most reported participant age (90%) and gender (85%), but only 25% included ethnic or racial data, and none provided socioeconomic details. The majority (95%) developed diagnostic models, yet only 85% clearly described training features, and 20% addressed missing data. Model evaluation revealed gaps; 80% reported internal validation, but only 20% conducted external validation. Discussion and Conclusion: This study, one of the first to apply MINIMAR criteria to ML research in CA, reveals significant variability and deficiencies in reporting, particularly in patient demographics, model architecture, and evaluation. These findings underscore the need for stricter adherence to standardized reporting guidelines to enhance the reliability, generalizability, and clinical applicability of ML/AI models in CA.
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.