ArticleEULAR rheumatology open2026
Agreement between large language models, human reviewers, and authors in evaluating STROBE checklists for observational studies in rheumatology.
Article in EULAR rheumatology open, 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Evaluating compliance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement can be time-consuming and subjective. This study compares STROBE assessments from large language models (LLMs), a human reviewer panel, and the original manuscript authors in observational rheumatology research. Methods: Guided by the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies and Development, Evaluation, and Assessment of Large Language Model Pathway B frameworks, 17 rheumatology articles (11 cohort, 4 cross-sectional, and 2 case-control) were independently assessed. Evaluations used the 22-item STROBE checklist, completed by the authors, a 5-person human panel (ranging from junior to senior professionals), and 2 LLMs (ChatGPT-5.2 and Gemini 3 Pro). Interrater reliability was calculated using Gwet's Agreement Coefficient (AC1) with 95% CIs. Results: Overall agreement across all reviewers was 85.0% (AC1 = 0.826 [95% CI: 0.801-0.851]). Domain stratification showed almost perfect agreement for 'Presentation & Context' (AC1 = 0.841 [95% CI: 0.810-0.872]) and substantial agreement for 'Methodological Rigor' (AC1 = 0.803 [95% CI: 0.761-0.845]). Although LLMs achieved complete agreement with all human reviewers on standard formatting elements, their agreement declined on complex methodological items, with some pairwise comparisons yielding negative AC1 values. Intra-LLM and cross-version agreement across repeated independent runs was high, and estimates were stable across publication periods, providing no clear evidence of data leakage. Conclusions: While LLMs show potential for basic STROBE screening, their lower agreement with human experts on complex methodological items likely reflects a reliance on surface-level information. These models appear more reliable for standardising straightforward checks than for replacing expert human judgement in evaluating observational research.
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.