The TRIPOD-LLM Statement: A Targeted Guideline For Reporting Large Language Models Use
Gallifant, J.; Afshar, M.; Ameen, S.; Aphinyanaphongs, Y.; Chen, S.; Cacciamani, G.; Demner-Fushman, D.; Dligach, D.; Daneshjou, R.; Fernandes, C.; Hansen, L. H.; Landman, A.; McCoy, L. G.; Miller, T.; Moreno, A.; Munch, N.; Restrepo, D.; Savova, G.; Umeton, R.; Gichoya, J. W.; Collins, G. S.; Moons, K. G. M.; Celi, L. A.; Bitterman, D. S.
Show abstract
Large Language Models (LLMs) are rapidly being adopted in healthcare, necessitating standardized reporting guidelines. We present TRIPOD-LLM, an extension of the TRIPOD+AI statement, addressing the unique challenges of LLMs in biomedical applications. TRIPOD-LLM provides a comprehensive checklist of 19 main items and 50 subitems, covering key aspects from title to discussion. The guidelines introduce a modular format accommodating various LLM research designs and tasks, with 14 main items and 32 subitems applicable across all categories. Developed through an expedited Delphi process and expert consensus, TRIPOD-LLM emphasizes transparency, human oversight, and task-specific performance reporting. We also introduce an interactive website (https://tripod-llm.vercel.app/) facilitating easy guideline completion and PDF generation for submission. As a living document, TRIPOD-LLM will evolve with the field, aiming to enhance the quality, reproducibility, and clinical applicability of LLM research in healthcare through comprehensive reporting. COIDSB: Editorial, unrelated to this work: Associate Editor of Radiation Oncology, HemOnc.org (no financial compensation); Research funding, unrelated to this work: American Association for Cancer Research; Advisory and consulting, unrelated to this work: MercurialAI. DDF: Editorial, unrelated to this work: Associate Editor of JAMIA, Editorial Board of Scientific Data, Nature; Funding, unrelated to this work: the intramural research program at the U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health. JWG: Editorial, unrelated to this work: Editorial Board of Radiology: Artificial Intelligence, British Journal of Radiology AI journal and NEJM AI. All other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Ethical review of clinical research with generative AI: Evaluating ChatGPT’s accuracy and reproducibility 95%
- Natural language processing to evaluate texting conversations between patients and healthcare providers during COVID-19 Home-Based Care in Rwanda at scale 94%
- Diversity and inclusion: A hidden additional benefit of Open Data 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol for Development of a Reporting Guideline for Causal and Counterfactual Prediction Models 95%
- GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to measure adherence to reporting guidelines 94%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- A Framework to Assess Clinical Safety and Hallucination Rates of LLMs for Medical Text Summarisation 95%
- Comparing scientific abstracts generated by ChatGPT to original abstracts using an artificial intelligence output detector, plagiarism detector, and blinded human reviewers 94%
- Simulated Misuse of Large Language Models and Clinical Credit Systems 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Natural Language Word-Embeddings as a glimpse into healthcare at the End Of Life 93%
- Connecting Artificial Intelligence and Primary Care Challenges: Findings from a Multi-Stakeholder Collaborative Consultation 92%
- Cracking the Code: A Scoping Review to Unite Disciplines in Tackling Legal Issues in Health Artificial Intelligence 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.