ArticleInsights into imaging2026
Insufficient reporting quality in large language model studies in the field of radiology.
Article in Insights into imaging, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Commercial large language models for oral cavity cancer staging using descriptive pre-treatment MRI reports: ready for standalone use in clinical practice?Insights into imaging · 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
- Response to "Evaluating Multimodal Large Language Models in Neuroradiology: Methodological Considerations".Korean journal of radiology · 2026Article
- Review
- Performance of Large Language Models in Answering Healthcare Delivery Questions: A Quantitative Cross-Sectional Study.Health science reports · 2026Article
- Evaluating large language model`s performance in answering principles of health course questions.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Agentic artificial intelligence in radiology workflow: from image interpretation to report quality control.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesOur systematic review aimed to evaluate the quality of reporting in research articles involving LLMs in the radiology field. MATERIALS AND
methodsAfter searching the PubMed-MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, a total of 246 eligible studies published between November 30, 2022, and December 31, 2024, were included. The analysis assessed the percentage of studies adhering to key elements required for LLM research, based on the MInimum reporting items for CLear Evaluation of Accuracy Reports of Large Language Models in healthcare (MI-CLEAR-LLM) and the Transparent Reporting of a Multivariable Model for Individual Prognosis Or Diagnosis-large language models (TRIPOD-LLM) checklists. Studies published before and after July 25, 2024, were compared using a chi-square test.
resultsThe most common topic was performance evaluation of LLMs using radiologic cases (44.3%, 109/246), followed by radiology reporting (37.8%, 93/246). Although all studies reported LLM's name, only 27.6% (68/246) specified the model version, 35.8% (88/246) mentioned access date, and 25.2% (62/246) mentioned application programming interface usage. Full prompts were provided in 41.1% (101/246) of studies. Output probability-related issues, including the number of attempts (22.8%, 56/246) and factors such as temperature (16.7%, 41/246), were under-reported. These reporting insufficiencies persisted in studies published before and after July 25, 2024.
conclusionMost studies assessing large language models in radiology lacked sufficient reporting of key elements required for large language model research. We recommend that authors strive to adhere to these elements to ensure transparency and improve the reproducibility of future studies. CRITICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT: Our study highlighted the need for improved reporting quality and adherence to key elements to ensure transparent reporting and improve the reproducibility of future studies using large language models. KEY POINTS: Numerous studies on large language models (LLMs) in radiology lack standardized methodologies, leading to high variability and inconsistent reporting. Our review demonstrated insufficiency in key elements for LLM research, particularly in model details and output probability. Better reporting and adherence to key elements are essential for enhancing transparency and reproducibility in future LLM research.
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.