Consolidated Reporting Guidelines for Prognostic and Diagnostic Machine Learning Models (CREMLS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.509 | 0.834 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.030 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.025 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.026 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".