MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406152263 · doi:10.1038/s41591-024-03425-5

The TRIPOD-LLM reporting guideline for studies using large language models

2025· review· en· W4406152263 on OpenAlexaff
Jack Gallifant, Majid Afshar, Saleem Ameen, Yindalon Aphinyanaphongs, Shan Chen, Giovanni Cacciamani, Dina Demner‐Fushman, Dmitriy Dligach, Roxana Daneshjou, Chrystinne Oliveira Fernandes, Lasse Hyldig Hansen, Adam Landman, Lisa Soleymani Lehmann, Liam G. McCoy, Timothy A. Miller, Amy C. Moreno, Nikolaj Munch, David Restrepo, Guergana Savova, Renato Umeton, Judy Wawira Gichoya, Gary S. Collins, Karel G.M. Moons, Leo Anthony Celi, Danielle S. Bitterman

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Medicine · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)University of Alberta
FundersNational Institute on Minority Health and Health DisparitiesNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesU.S. National Library of MedicineDepartment of Health and Social CareNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthNational Science FoundationCancer Research UKEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchRadiological Society of North AmericaFogarty International CenterNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringGordon and Betty Moore Foundation
KeywordsTripod (photography)ChecklistGuidelineStandardizationComputer scienceHealth careComparabilityDelphiMedicinePsychologyEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.076
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.259
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Reporting · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.401

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0760.259
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.022
Bibliometrics0.0170.014
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0100.009
Research integrity0.0090.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0660.030

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 head0.079
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.430 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
DomainReporting
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

Citations355
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueNature MedicineSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207