ArticlemedRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences2026
SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM: Element-Level Annotated Dataset and Large Language Model Approach for Assessing Randomized Controlled Trial Reporting.
Article in medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences, 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are central to assessing the benefits and harms of interventions, but incomplete reporting undermines their verifiability and usefulness. Although SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting guidelines promote complete reporting of RCT protocols and results publications, many RCTs remain incompletely reported. Automated manuscript checking could help improve reporting completeness before publication. We previously developed SPIRIT-CONSORT-TM, a corpus of 200 articles (100 protocol-results publication pairs) annotated with 83 checklist items from SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, and trained models for item-level assessment. However, checklist items may comprise multiple constituent elements, which prior work did not capture or evaluate. Here, we extend the corpus with element-level annotations (SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM) and formulate assessment as a machine reading comprehension task operationalized through 119 questions targeting specific reporting elements. Two annotators independently assessed 50 articles (25 pairs), with discrepancies resolved through discussion; one annotator assessed the remaining 150 articles. We then developed an automated pipeline combining PubMedBERT-based evidence retrieval with GPT-5-based question answering. Inter-annotator agreement was high (Gwet's AC1: 0.782), and the pipeline achieved high performance (F1: 0.822, Gwet's AC1: 0.796). Component analyses demonstrated the importance of evidence retrieval quality and modest benefits from illustrative in-context examples. SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM provides a benchmark for fine-grained assessment of RCT reporting completeness, while the automated pipeline establishes a robust baseline and shows potential for supporting authors, reviewers, and editors.
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.