Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41838317›Full record

ArticleInsights into imaging2026

Insufficient reporting quality in large language model studies in the field of radiology.

Pae Sun Suh, So Yeong Jeong, Daiju Ueda, Woo Hyun Shim, Hwon Heo, Chang-Yun Woo, Hyungjun Park, Chong Hyun Suh

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing 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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

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

8 authors.

Pae Sun Suh *Department of Radiology, Research Institute of Radiological Science and Center for Clinical Imaging Data Science, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
So Yeong Jeong *Department of Radiology, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seongnam, Republic of Korea.
Daiju UedaDepartment of Artificial Intelligence, Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka Metropolitan University, Osaka, Japan.
Woo Hyun ShimDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hwon HeoDepartment of Medical Science, Asan Medical Institute of Convergence Science and Technology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Chang-Yun WooDepartment of Internal Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea.
Hyungjun ParkDepartment of Pulmonology, Shihwa Medical Center, Siheung, Republic of Korea.
Chong Hyun SuhDepartment of Radiology and Research Institute of Radiology, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Republic of Korea. chonghyunsuh@amc.seoul.kr.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4737-0530

Funding

Asan Institute for Life Sciences, Asan Medical Center 2025IT0007Korea Health Industry Development Institute HR20C0026
6 · The paper itself

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

Large language modelRadiologyReporting qualitySystematic review

Identifiers

PMID41838317
PMCPMC12992711

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.