MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389814783 · doi:10.1101/2023.12.14.23299971

GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to determine adherence to reporting guidelines

2023· preprint· en· W4389814783 on OpenAlexafffund
James G. Wrightson, Paul Blazey, David Moher, Karim M. Khan, Clare L. Ardern

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicMeta-analysis and systematic reviews
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsGuidelineMedicineHyperparameterTest (biology)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMedical physics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Adherence to established reporting guidelines can improve clinical trial reporting standards, but attempts to improve adherence have produced mixed results. This exploratory study aimed to determine how accurate a Large Language Model generative AI system (AI-LLM) was for determining reporting guideline compliance in a sample of sports medicine clinical trial reports. Design and Methods This study was an exploratory retrospective data analysis. The OpenAI GPT-4 and Meta LLama2 AI-LLMa were evaluated for their ability to determine reporting guideline adherence in a sample of 113 published sports medicine and exercise science clinical trial reports. For each paper, the GPT-4-Turbo and Llama 2 70B models were prompted to answer a series of nine reporting guideline questions about the text of the article. The GPT-4-Vision model was prompted to answer two additional reporting guideline questions about the participant flow diagram in a subset of articles. The dataset was randomly split (80/20) into a TRAIN and TEST dataset. Hyperparameter and fine-tuning were performed using the TRAIN dataset. The Llama2 model was fine-tuned using the data from the GPT-4-Turbo analysis of the TRAIN dataset. Primary outcome measure: Model performance (F1-score, classification accuracy) was assessed using the TEST dataset. Results Across all questions about the article text, the GPT-4-Turbo AI-LLM demonstrated acceptable performance (F1-score = 0.89, accuracy[95% CI] = 90%[85-94%]). Accuracy for all reporting guidelines was > 80%. The Llama2 model accuracy was initially poor (F1-score = 0.63, accuracy[95%CI] = 64%[57-71%]), and improved with fine-tuning (F1-score = 0.84, accuracy[95%CI] = 83%[77-88%]). The GPT-4-Vision model accurately identified all participant flow diagrams (accuracy[95% CI] = 100%[89-100%]) but was less accurate at identifying when details were missing from the flow diagram (accuracy[95% CI] = 57%[39-73%]). Conclusions Both the GPT-4 and fine-tuned Llama2 AI-LLMs showed promise as tools for assessing reporting guideline compliance. Next steps should include developing an efficent, open-source AI-LLM and exploring methods to improve model accuracy.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.214
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.530
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.324
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2140.530
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.003

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.956
GPT teacher head0.654
Teacher spread0.301 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxivSame topicMeta-analysis and systematic reviewsFrench-language works237,207