Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42551868›Full record

ArticleKorean journal of radiology2026

Reporting Quality of Large Language Model Studies: A Cross-Sectional Audit of High-Ranking Radiology and Medical Imaging Journals.

Ismail Mese, Saime Turgut Gunes, Ozge Coskun, Ali Keles, Tuba Banaz, Muhammed Faruk Kazanbas, Burak Kocak

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Korean journal of radiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Ismail MeseDepartment of Radiology, Üsküdar State Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4429-6996
Saime Turgut GunesDepartment of Radiology, Başakşehir Çam and Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5593-0967
Ozge CoskunDepartment of Radiology, Başakşehir Çam and Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0002-0355-2874
Ali KelesDepartment of Radiology, Başakşehir Çam and Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2474-9983
Tuba BanazDepartment of Radiology, Başakşehir Çam and Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7895-4942
Muhammed Faruk KazanbasDepartment of Radiology, Başakşehir Çam and Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0001-8121-2157
Burak KocakDepartment of Radiology, Başakşehir Çam and Sakura City Hospital, Istanbul, Türkiye. drburakkocak@gmail.com.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7307-396X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate adherence to the Minimum Reporting Items for Clear Evaluation of Accuracy Reports of Large Language Models in Healthcare (MI-CLEAR-LLM) in radiology and medical imaging studies involving large language models (LLMs). MATERIALS AND

methodsWe conducted a cross-sectional audit of original LLM research studies published between January 1 and December 26, 2025, in Q1 journals within the Web of Science "Radiology, Nuclear Medicine, and Medical Imaging" category. PubMed and Scopus were searched to identify eligible studies. A quota-based subsampling strategy, based on journal publication volume, was used to select approximately 100 studies. All four eligible articles from the

resultsOf 201 eligible studies identified, 102 were finally analyzed after applying the subsampling strategy. Overall adherence to MI-CLEAR-LLM was moderate (mean, 51.2% ± 14.7%; range, 22.2%-84.2%). Adherence was highest for input data type (100%), test-data independence (80.2%), and adaptation strategy (78.1%), and lowest for prompt execution setup (29.4%) and stochasticity management (33.1%). The least frequently reported items were training-data cutoff date (9.8%) and rationale for prompt wording (15.6%). Adherence varied significantly across journals (

conclusionReporting transparency in radiology and medical imaging LLM studies published in 2025 was inconsistent across reporting items and journals, with substantial deficiencies in some reproducibility-critical elements. Broader adoption of reporting standards is essential to improve the reproducibility and interpretability of future accuracy evaluations.

Indexed as

Diagnostic ImagingLarge Language ModelsPeriodicals as TopicRadiologyCross-Sectional StudiesGuideline AdherenceHumansRepublic of KoreaArtificial intelligenceChecklistCross-sectional studyNatural language processingRadiologyReporting guidelineReproducibility

Identifiers

PMID42551868
PMCPMC13537875

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.