Reporting guideline for the use of Generative Artificial intelligence tools in MEdical Research: the GAMER Statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools can enhance the quality and efficiency of medical research, but their improper use may result in plagiarism, academic fraud and unreliable findings. Transparent reporting of GAI use is essential, yet existing guidelines from journals and institutions are inconsistent, with no standardised principles. DESIGN AND SETTING: International online Delphi study. PARTICIPANTS: International experts in medicine and artificial intelligence. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome measure is the consensus level of the Delphi expert panel on the items of inclusion criteria for GAMER (Rreporting guideline for the use of Generative Artificial intelligence tools in MEdical Research). RESULTS: The development process included a scoping review, two Delphi rounds and virtual meetings. 51 experts from 26 countries participated in the process (44 in the Delphi survey). The final checklist comprises nine reporting items: general declaration, GAI tool specifications, prompting techniques, tool's role in the study, declaration of new GAI model(s) developed, artificial intelligence-assisted sections in the manuscript, content verification, data privacy and impact on conclusions. CONCLUSION: GAMER provides universal and standardised guideline for GAI use in medical research, ensuring transparency, integrity and quality.
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 | 0.335 | 0.526 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.018 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
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".