PreprintCited by 0Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsArtificial Intelligence in HealthcareAcademic Writing and Publishing

Consolidated Reporting Guidelines for Prognostic and Diagnostic Machine Learning Models (CREMLS) (Preprint)

Open access
El Emam, Khaled, Leung, Tiffany I, Malin, Bradley, Klement, William, Eysenbach, Gunther·2024

Preprint — 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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2196/preprints.52508

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

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)
Published
2024-04-04
OpenAlex
W4396574570
Cited by
0
References
2
Type
posted content
Language
en
Open access
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