Meta-research on reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence: are authors and reviewers encouraged enough in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals?

被引:4
作者
Kocak, Burak [1 ]
Keles, Ali [1 ]
Kose, Fadime [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Hlth Sci, Basaksehir Cam & Sakura City Hosp, Clin Radiol, Istanbul, Turkiye
来源
DIAGNOSTIC AND INTERVENTIONAL RADIOLOGY | 2024年 / 30卷 / 05期
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
Artificial intelligence; machine learning; guideline; checklist; reporting; DIAGNOSTIC-ACCURACY; HEALTH RESEARCH; QUALITY; CHECKLIST; STATEMENT; AMERICAN; IMPROVE; TRIALS;
D O I
10.4274/dir.2024.232604
中图分类号
R8 [特种医学]; R445 [影像诊断学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100207 ; 1009 ;
摘要
Purpose To determine how radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals encourage and mandate the use of reporting guidelines for artificial intelligence (AI) in their author and reviewer instructions. Methods The primary source of journal information and associated citation data used was the Journal Citation Reports (June 2023 release for 2022 citation data; Clarivate Analytics, UK). The first- and second-quartile journals indexed in the Science Citation Index Expanded and the Emerging Sources Citation Index were included. The author and reviewer instructions were evaluated by two independent readers, followed by an additional reader for consensus, with the assistance of automatic annotation. Encouragement and submission requirements were systematically analyzed. The reporting guidelines were grouped as AI-specific, related to modeling, and unrelated to modeling. Results Out of 102 journals, 98 were included in this study, and all of them had author instructions. Only five journals (5%) encouraged the authors to follow AI-specific reporting guidelines. Among these, three required a filled-out checklist. Reviewer instructions were found in 16 journals (16%), among which one journal (6%) encouraged the reviewers to follow AI-specific reporting guidelines without submission requirements. The proportions of author and reviewer encouragement for AI-specific reporting guidelines were statistically significantly lower compared with those for other types of guidelines (P < 0.05 for all). Conclusion The findings indicate that AI-specific guidelines are not commonly encouraged and mandated (i.e., requiring a filled-out checklist) by these journals, compared with guidelines related to modeling and unrelated to modeling, leaving vast space for improvement. This meta-research study hopes to contribute to the awareness of the imaging community for AI reporting guidelines and ignite large-scale group efforts by all stakeholders, making AI research less wasteful. Clinical significance This meta-research highlights the need for improved encouragement of AI-specific guidelines in radiology, nuclear medicine, and medical imaging journals. This can potentially foster greater awareness among the AI community and motivate various stakeholders to collaborate to promote more efficient and responsible AI research reporting practices.
引用
收藏
页码:291 / 298
页数:8
相关论文
共 74 条
  • [1] Impact of the mandatory implementation of reporting guidelines on reporting quality in a surgical journal: A before and after study
    Agha, Riaz Ahmed
    Fowler, Alexander J.
    Limb, Christopher
    Whitehurst, Katharine
    Coe, Robert
    Sagoo, Harkiran
    Jafree, Daniyal J.
    Chandrakumar, Charmilie
    Gundogan, Buket
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF SURGERY, 2016, 30 : 169 - 172
  • [2] Responsible reporting of health research studies: transparent, complete, accurate and timely
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Simera, Iveta
    [J]. JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL CHEMOTHERAPY, 2010, 65 (01) : 1 - 3
  • [3] Misconduct Policies in High-Impact Biomedical Journals
    Bosch, Xavier
    Hernandez, Cristina
    Pericas, Juan M.
    Doti, Pamela
    Marusic, Ana
    [J]. PLOS ONE, 2012, 7 (12):
  • [4] Bossuyt PM, 2015, BMJ-BRIT MED J, V351, DOI [10.1148/radiol.2015151516, 10.1373/clinchem.2015.246280, 10.1136/bmj.h5527]
  • [5] Botos J, 2018, RES INTEGR PEER REV, V3, DOI 10.1186/s41073-018-0052-4
  • [6] The need to separate the wheat from the chaff in medical informatics Introducing a comprehensive checklist for the (self)-assessment of medical AI studies
    Cabitza, Federico
    Campagner, Andrea
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INFORMATICS, 2021, 153
  • [7] Telemonitoring for chronic heart failure: not ready for prime time
    Casas, Juan-Pablo
    Kwong, Joey
    Ebrahim, Shah
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2010, (08):
  • [8] Identifying outcome reporting bias in randomised trials on PubMed: review of publications and survey of authors
    Chan, AW
    Altman, DG
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 330 (7494): : 753 - 756
  • [9] Elevating the Quality of Disability and Rehabilitation Research Mandatory Use of the Reporting Guidelines
    Chan, Leighton
    Heinemann, Allen W.
    Roberts, Jason
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PHYSICAL MEDICINE & REHABILITATION, 2014, 93 (04) : 279 - 281
  • [10] Effect of using reporting guidelines during peer review on quality of final manuscripts submitted to a biomedical journal: masked randomised trial
    Cobo, E.
    Cortes, J.
    Ribera, J. M.
    Cardellach, F.
    Selva-O'Callaghan, A.
    Kostov, B.
    Garcia, L.
    Cirugeda, L.
    Altman, D. G.
    Gonzalez, J. A.
    Sanchez, J. A.
    Miras, F.
    Urrutia, A.
    Fonollosa, V.
    Rey-Joly, C.
    Vilardell, M.
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2011, 343 : 1084