Self-reporting with checklists in artificial intelligence research on medical imaging: a systematic review based on citations of CLAIM

ObjectiveTo evaluate the usage of a well-known and widely adopted checklist, Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical imaging (CLAIM), for self-reporting through a systematic analysis of its citations.MethodsGoogle Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus were used to search for citations (date, 29 April 2023). CLAIM's use for self-reporting with proof (i.e., filled-out checklist) and other potential use cases were systematically assessed in research papers. Eligible papers were evaluated independently by two readers, with the help of automatic annotation. Item-by-item confirmation analysis on papers with checklist proof was subsequently performed.ResultsA total of 391 unique citations were identified from three databases. Of the 118 papers included in this study, 12 (10%) provided a proof of self-reported CLAIM checklist. More than half (70; 59%) only mentioned some sort of adherence to CLAIM without providing any proof in the form of a checklist. Approximately one-third (36; 31%) cited the CLAIM for reasons unrelated to their reporting or methodological adherence. Overall, the claims on 57 to 93% of the items per publication were confirmed in the item-by-item analysis, with a mean and standard deviation of 81% and 10%, respectively.ConclusionOnly a small proportion of the publications used CLAIM as checklist and supplied filled-out documentation; however, the self-reported checklists may contain errors and should be approached cautiously. We hope that this systematic citation analysis would motivate artificial intelligence community about the importance of proper self-reporting, and encourage researchers, journals, editors, and reviewers to take action to ensure the proper usage of checklists.Clinical relevance statementOnly a small percentage of the publications used CLAIM for self-reporting with proof (i.e., filled-out checklist). However, the filled-out checklist proofs may contain errors, e.g., false claims of adherence, and should be approached cautiously. These may indicate inappropriate usage of checklists and necessitate further action by authorities.Key Points & BULL; Of 118 eligible papers, only 12 (10%) followed the CLAIM checklist for self-reporting with proof (i.e., filled-out checklist). More than half (70; 59%) only mentioned some kind of adherence without providing any proof.& BULL; Overall, claims on 57 to 93% of the items were valid in item-by-item confirmation analysis, with a mean and standard deviation of 81% and 10%, respectively.& BULL; Even with the checklist proof, the items declared may contain errors and should be approached cautiously.Key Points & BULL; Of 118 eligible papers, only 12 (10%) followed the CLAIM checklist for self-reporting with proof (i.e., filled-out checklist). More than half (70; 59%) only mentioned some kind of adherence without providing any proof.& BULL; Overall, claims on 57 to 93% of the items were valid in item-by-item confirmation analysis, with a mean and standard deviation of 81% and 10%, respectively.& BULL; Even with the checklist proof, the items declared may contain errors and should be approached cautiously.Key Points & BULL; Of 118 eligible papers, only 12 (10%) followed the CLAIM checklist for self-reporting with proof (i.e., filled-out checklist). More than half (70; 59%) only mentioned some kind of adherence without providing any proof.& BULL; Overall, claims on 57 to 93% of the items were valid in item-by-item confirmation analysis, with a mean and standard deviation of 81% and 10%, respectively. & BULL; Even with the checklist proof, the items declared may contain errors and should be approached cautiously.