ArticleInternational journal of technology assessment in health care2026
Reporting the use of AI in horizon scanning: a brief communication on methodological standards.
Article in International journal of technology assessment in health care, 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesThe UK is being positioned to become a leader in the field of artificial intelligence (AI), with the government driving the AI Opportunities Action Plan. In line with the government's push for an AI-driven future, horizon-scanning organizations are leveraging AI and embedding it within their methodological practices. To ensure the transparent, reliable, and responsible use of AI, horizon scanning requires a set of tailored reporting items. However, this is a notable gap in the current methodological landscape.
methodsThis methods communication discusses the current guidelines, policies, and statements around the use of AI relevant to futures and foresight research for health, social care, and life sciences policy and practice. We include stakeholder positions, research funding applications and writing for publication within the discussion and demonstrate how these guidelines relate to horizon scanning practices, with a focus on the common recommendations for reporting AI.
resultsWe have utilized the documents to identify and consolidate reporting recommendations into a minimal set of reporting items for AI in horizon scanning. A total of 139 data points were consolidated into 46 reporting items under six categories.
conclusionsFurther work is needed to validate these reporting items, but this interim step toward a robust reporting framework fills an immediate methodological need. We encourage those working in the horizon scanning space to continue to explore and embed AI transparently and responsibly in this rapidly adapting field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.