MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412810793 · doi:10.12771/emj.2025.00661

The TRIPOD-LLM reporting guideline for studies using large language models: a Korean translation

2025· article· en· W4412810793 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, Karel G.M. Moons, Danielle S. Bitterman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Ewha Medical Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical Imaging
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersNational Center for Advancing Translational SciencesNational Institute of Biomedical Imaging and BioengineeringNational Institutes of HealthNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteFogarty International Center
KeywordsTripod (photography)GuidelineTranslation (biology)MedicineNatural language processingComputer scienceEngineeringChemistryPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

대형 언어 모델(large language model, LLM)의 활용이 의료 분야에서 빠르게 확대되면서, 표준화된 보고 지침의 필요성이 커지고 있다. 이 논문에서는 LLM을 활용한 연구를 위한 다변수 예측모델의 투명한 보고(TRIPOD-LLM) 지침을 제시하였다. TRIPOD-LLM은 기존 TRIPOD와 인공지능(artificial intelligence) 확장 지침을 기반으로 하며, 바이오 메디컬 분야에서 LLM이 가지는 고유한 도전 과제들을 반영하고 있다. 이 지침은 제목부터 논의까지 주요 내용을 포괄하는 19개 주요 항목과 50개 세부 항목으로 구성되어 있다. 다양한 LLM 연구설계와 작업에 적용할 수 있도록 모듈형 형식을 도입하였고, 모든 연구에 공통적으로 적용할 수 있는 14개 주요 항목과 32개 세부 항목을 포함한다. 이 지침은 신속한 델파이(Delphi) 과정과 전문가 합의를 거쳐 개발하였으며, 투명성과 인간 감독, 과업 특이적 성과(task-specific performance) 보고의 중요성을 강조한다. 또한 지침의 손쉬운 작성과 제출용 PDF 생성을 지원하는 인터랙티브 웹사이트(https://tripod-llm.vercel.app/)를 소개한다. TRIPOD-LLM은 ‘생명력 있는 문서’로서, 연구현장의 변화에 맞추어 지속적으로 개정될 예정이다. 이 지침을 통해 LLM 연구의 보고 수준을 높이고, 재현성과 임상 적용 가능성을 강화하는 데 기여하려고 한다.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.952
Threshold uncertainty score0.991

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.440
Teacher spread0.368 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Ewha Medical JournalSame topicRadiomics and Machine Learning in Medical ImagingFrench-language works237,207