MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413482558 · doi:10.1136/bmjonc-2025-000891

Five years after CONSORT-AI, not much has changed: a call to action for artificial intelligence research in oncology

2025· editorial· en· W4413482558 on OpenAlexaff
Jethro C.C. Kwong, David‐Dan Nguyen, Adree Khondker, Tiange Li, Girish S. Kulkarni

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Oncology · 2025
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCall to actionAction (physics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceOncologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since its introduction in 1996, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement has been widely used to facilitate transparent reporting of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), including those in oncology.1 Due to the unique methodological and implementation challenges associated with artificial intelligence (AI)-based interventions, the CONSORT group subsequently released the CONSORT-AI extension in 2020.2 This extension introduced 14 AI-specific items to strengthen the clarity, reproducibility and reliability of trials involving AI tools.

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 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)0.139
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.324
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: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.861
Threshold uncertainty score0.737

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1390.324
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.009
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0180.012
Open science0.0080.003
Research integrity0.0330.052
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.010

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 head0.547
GPT teacher head0.628
Teacher spread0.082 · 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
GenreEditorial

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 venueBMJ OncologySame topicArtificial Intelligence in Healthcare and EducationFrench-language works237,207