ArticleJapanese journal of radiology2026
Evaluating guideline adherence in LLM studies using LLMs.
Article in Japanese journal of radiology, 2026. 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
Abstract
purposeTo evaluate the capability of large language models (LLM), specifically GPT-4 and o1, in assessing adherence to the MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist in previously published studies. MATERIALS AND
methodsA total of 159 medical research articles related to LLM applications were analyzed. Two models-GPT-4o and o1-were tested in both text-based and image-based modalities. Structured prompts incorporating reasoning strategies such as chain-of-thought and few-shot learning were used to extract information corresponding to the six core items of the MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist. Human evaluations from a prior study served as the reference standard. Each model was evaluated across three independent trials to assess consistency. Accuracy and inter-trial agreement were calculated for each checklist item.
resultsBoth GPT-4o and o1 demonstrated high accuracy in extracting objective, explicitly reported items, such as LLM specifications (name, manufacturer, web access, 85.9-100%) and stochasticity parameters (63.6-95%). However, performance declined for context-dependent items, including prompt session handling (Item4, 51.5-70.7%) and test data independence (Item6, 59.6-76.8%). Text-based models generally showed superior inter-trial consistency, with GPT-4o-text achieving the highest Fleiss' kappa (κ = 0.926). In contrast, image-based models exhibited greater variability (κ = 0.402-0.772).
conclusionLLMs show strong potential for automating the evaluation of reporting quality in medical research, particularly for clearly structured content. However, they still face substantial challenges in extracting context-dependent or inferential information.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41642531What 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.