Consolidated Reporting Guidelines for Prognostic and Diagnostic Machine Learning Models (CREMLS) (Preprint)
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.2196/52508 · Paper page
Abstract
UNSTRUCTURED: The number of papers presenting machine learning (ML) models that are being submitted to and published in the Journal of Medical Internet Research and other JMIR Publications journals has steadily increased. Editors and peer reviewers involved in the review process for such manuscripts often go through multiple review cycles to enhance the quality and completeness of reporting. The use of reporting guidelines or checklists can help ensure consistency in the quality of submitted (and published) scientific manuscripts and, for example, avoid instances of missing information. In this Editorial, the editors of JMIR Publications journals discuss the general JMIR Publications policy regarding authors’ application of reporting guidelines and specifically focus on the reporting of ML studies in JMIR Publications journals, using the Consolidated Reporting of Machine Learning Studies (CREMLS) guidelines, with an example of how authors and other journals could use the CREMLS checklist to ensure transparency and rigor in reporting.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials
the CONSORT Group, Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., & Moher, D. (2010) · Trials · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-11-32 · Cited by 1,871 · see citing works
Wilimitis, D., & Walsh, C. G. (2023) · JMIR AI · doi:10.2196/49023 · Cited by 185 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
- Authors
- El Emam, K., Leung, T. I., Malin, B., Klement, W., & Eysenbach, G.
- Affiliations
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Vanderbilt University (US)
- Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CA)
- Publisher
- JMIR Publications Inc.
- Published
- 2024-04-04
- OpenAlex
- W4396574570
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 2
- Type
- posted content
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- dx.doi.org
- Licence
- cc-by
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Academic Writing and Publishing
- Keywords
- reporting guidelines, prognostic model, diagnostic model, reporting checklist, transparency, research rigor, peer review policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review