Reporting Quality of Research Studies on AI Applications in Medical Images According to the CLAIM Guidelines in a Radiology Journal With a Strong Prominence in Asia.

We aimed to evaluate the reporting quality of research articles that applied deep learning to medical imaging. Using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) guidelines and a journal with prominence in Asia as a sample, we intended to provide an insight into reporting quality in the Asian region and establish a journal-specific audit. A total of 38 articles published in the Korean Journal of Radiology between June 2018 and January 2023 were analyzed. The analysis included calculating the percentage of studies that adhered to each CLAIM item and identifying items that were met by ≤ 50% of the studies. The article review was initially conducted independently by two reviewers, and the consensus results were used for the final analysis. We also compared adherence rates to CLAIM before and after December 2020. Of the 42 items in the CLAIM guidelines, 12 items (29%) were satisfied by ≤ 50% of the included articles. None of the studies reported handling missing data (item #13). Only one study respectively presented the use of de-identification methods (#12), intended sample size (#19), robustness or sensitivity analysis (#30), and full study protocol (#41). Of the studies, 35% reported the selection of data subsets (#10), 40% reported registration information (#40), and 50% measured inter and intrarater variability (#18). No significant changes were observed in the rates of adherence to these 12 items before and after December 2020. The reporting quality of artificial intelligence studies according to CLAIM guidelines, in our study sample, showed room for improvement. We recommend that the authors and reviewers have a solid understanding of the relevant reporting guidelines and ensure that the essential elements are adequately reported when writing and reviewing the manuscripts for publication.

Kim DY ，Oh HW ，Suh CH 《-》

The Low Rate of Adherence to Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging Criteria Among Published Prostate MRI Artificial Intelligence Algorithms.

To determine the rigor, generalizability, and reproducibility of published classification and detection artificial intelligence (AI) models for prostate cancer (PCa) on MRI using the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) guidelines, a 42-item checklist that is considered a measure of best practice for presenting and reviewing medical imaging AI research. This review searched English literature for studies proposing PCa AI detection and classification models on MRI. Each study was evaluated with the CLAIM checklist. The additional outcomes for which data were sought included measures of AI model performance (eg, area under the curve [AUC], sensitivity, specificity, free-response operating characteristic curves), training and validation and testing group sample size, AI approach, detection versus classification AI, public data set utilization, MRI sequences used, and definition of gold standard for ground truth. The percentage of CLAIM checklist fulfillment was used to stratify studies into quartiles. Wilcoxon's rank-sum test was used for pair-wise comparisons. In all, 75 studies were identified, and 53 studies qualified for analysis. The original CLAIM items that most studies did not fulfill includes item 12 (77% no): de-identification methods; item 13 (68% no): handling missing data; item 15 (47% no): rationale for choosing ground truth reference standard; item 18 (55% no): measurements of inter- and intrareader variability; item 31 (60% no): inclusion of validated interpretability maps; item 37 (92% no): inclusion of failure analysis to elucidate AI model weaknesses. An AUC score versus percentage CLAIM fulfillment quartile revealed a significant difference of the mean AUC scores between quartile 1 versus quartile 2 (0.78 versus 0.86, P = .034) and quartile 1 versus quartile 4 (0.78 versus 0.89, P = .003) scores. Based on additional information and outcome metrics gathered in this study, additional measures of best practice are defined. These new items include disclosure of public dataset usage, ground truth definition in comparison to other referenced works in the defined task, and sample size power calculation. A large proportion of AI studies do not fulfill key items in CLAIM guidelines within their methods and results sections. The percentage of CLAIM checklist fulfillment is weakly associated with improved AI model performance. Additions or supplementations to CLAIM are recommended to improve publishing standards and aid reviewers in determining study rigor.

Belue MJ ，Harmon SA ，Lay NS ，Daryanani A ，Phelps TE ，Choyke PL ，Turkbey B ... -  《-》

Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging Reporting Adherence in Peer-Reviewed and Preprint Manuscripts With the Highest Altmetric Attention Scores: A Meta-Research Study.

Sivanesan U ，Wu K ，McInnes MDF ，Dhindsa K ，Salehi F ，van der Pol CB ... -  《-》

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

To 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. Google 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. A 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. Only 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. Only 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. • 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. • 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. • Even with the checklist proof, the items declared may contain errors and should be approached cautiously.

Kocak B ，Keles A ，Akinci D'Antonoli T 《-》

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

Koçak B ，Keleş A ，Köse F 《Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology》