目的:评估放射学期刊是否以及如何展示其关于使用大型语言模型(LLM)的政策,并识别与存在关联的日志特征变量。
方法:在这项荟萃研究中,我们筛选了放射学杂志,核医学和医学影像类别,2022年期刊引文报告,不包括非英语期刊和不可用的相关文件。我们评估了他们的LLM使用政策:(1)政策是否存在;(2)政策是否适用于作者,审稿人,并且编辑在场;以及(3)政策是否要求作者报告LLM的使用情况,LLM的名称,使用LLM的部分,LLM的作用,LLM的验证,和LLM的潜在影响。评估了策略的存在与期刊特征变量之间的关联。
结果:在43.9%(83/189)的期刊中提出了LLM使用政策,对于作者来说,审稿人,编辑的比例为43.4%(82/189),29.6%(56/189)和25.9%(49/189)的期刊,分别。许多期刊提到了使用方面(43.4%,82/189),名字(34.9%,66/189),验证(33.3%,63/189),和角色(31.7%,60/189)的法学硕士,而LLM的潜在影响(4.2%,8/189),和使用LLM的部分(1.6%,3/189)被少量触摸。发布者与LLM使用策略的存在有关(p<0.001)。
结论:在放射学期刊中,LLM使用策略的存在并不理想。鼓励制定报告准则,以促进报告质量和透明度。
■如果利益相关者制定了共享的完整报告指南,然后由期刊认可,则可以提高LLM在科学写作中使用的质量和透明度。
结论:在放射学期刊中使用LLM的政策尚未探索。一些放射学期刊提出了有关LLM使用的政策。需要LLM使用的共享完整报告指南。
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate whether and how the radiological journals present their policies on the use of large language models (LLMs), and identify the journal characteristic variables that are associated with the presence.
METHODS: In this meta-research study, we screened Journals from the Radiology, Nuclear Medicine and Medical Imaging Category, 2022 Journal Citation Reports, excluding journals in non-English languages and relevant documents unavailable. We assessed their LLM use policies: (1) whether the policy is present; (2) whether the policy for the authors, the reviewers, and the editors is present; and (3) whether the policy asks the author to report the usage of LLMs, the name of LLMs, the section that used LLMs, the role of LLMs, the verification of LLMs, and the potential influence of LLMs. The association between the presence of policies and journal characteristic variables was evaluated.
RESULTS: The LLM use policies were presented in 43.9% (83/189) of journals, and those for the authors, the reviewers, and the editor were presented in 43.4% (82/189), 29.6% (56/189) and 25.9% (49/189) of journals, respectively. Many journals mentioned the aspects of the usage (43.4%, 82/189), the name (34.9%, 66/189), the verification (33.3%, 63/189), and the role (31.7%, 60/189) of LLMs, while the potential influence of LLMs (4.2%, 8/189), and the section that used LLMs (1.6%, 3/189) were seldomly touched. The publisher is related to the presence of LLM use policies (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: The presence of LLM use policies is suboptimal in radiological journals. A reporting guideline is encouraged to facilitate reporting quality and transparency.
UNASSIGNED: It may facilitate the quality and transparency of the use of LLMs in scientific writing if a shared complete reporting guideline is developed by stakeholders and then endorsed by journals.
CONCLUSIONS: The policies on LLM use in radiological journals are unexplored. Some of the radiological journals presented policies on LLM use. A shared complete reporting guideline for LLM use is desired.