Lan Jiang, Xiangji Ying, Andrew W. Brown, Mengfei Lan, Wenxuan Song, Joe D. Menke, Colby J. Vorland, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Halil Kilicoglu
{"title":"SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM: element-level annotated dataset and large language model approach for assessing randomized controlled trial reporting","authors":"Lan Jiang, Xiangji Ying, Andrew W. Brown, Mengfei Lan, Wenxuan Song, Joe D. Menke, Colby J. Vorland, Evan Mayo-Wilson, Halil Kilicoglu","doi":"10.1038/s41746-026-03318-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are central to assessing the benefits and harms of interventions, but incomplete reporting undermines their verifiability and usefulness. Although SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting guidelines promote complete reporting of RCT protocols and results publications, many RCTs remain incompletely reported. Automated manuscript checking could help improve reporting completeness before publication. We previously developed SPIRIT-CONSORT-TM, a corpus of 200 articles (100 protocol-results publication pairs) annotated with 83 checklist items from SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, and trained models for item-level assessment. However, checklist items may comprise multiple constituent elements, which prior work did not capture or evaluate. Here, we extend the corpus with element-level annotations (SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM) and formulate assessment as a machine reading comprehension task operationalized through 119 questions targeting specific reporting elements. Two annotators independently assessed 50 articles (25 pairs), with discrepancies resolved through discussion; one annotator assessed the remaining 150 articles. We then developed an automated pipeline combining PubMedBERT-based evidence retrieval with GPT-5-based question answering. Inter-annotator agreement was high (Gwet’s AC1: 0.782), and the pipeline achieved high performance (F1: 0.822, Gwet’s AC1: 0.796). Component analyses demonstrated the importance of evidence retrieval quality and modest benefits from illustrative in-context examples. SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM provides a benchmark for fine-grained assessment of RCT reporting completeness, while the automated pipeline establishes a robust baseline and shows potential for supporting authors, reviewers, and editors.","PeriodicalId":19349,"journal":{"name":"NPJ Digital Medicine","volume":"41 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":18.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-10-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"NPJ Digital Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1038/s41746-026-03318-6","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are central to assessing the benefits and harms of interventions, but incomplete reporting undermines their verifiability and usefulness. Although SPIRIT and CONSORT reporting guidelines promote complete reporting of RCT protocols and results publications, many RCTs remain incompletely reported. Automated manuscript checking could help improve reporting completeness before publication. We previously developed SPIRIT-CONSORT-TM, a corpus of 200 articles (100 protocol-results publication pairs) annotated with 83 checklist items from SPIRIT 2013 and CONSORT 2010, and trained models for item-level assessment. However, checklist items may comprise multiple constituent elements, which prior work did not capture or evaluate. Here, we extend the corpus with element-level annotations (SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM) and formulate assessment as a machine reading comprehension task operationalized through 119 questions targeting specific reporting elements. Two annotators independently assessed 50 articles (25 pairs), with discrepancies resolved through discussion; one annotator assessed the remaining 150 articles. We then developed an automated pipeline combining PubMedBERT-based evidence retrieval with GPT-5-based question answering. Inter-annotator agreement was high (Gwet’s AC1: 0.782), and the pipeline achieved high performance (F1: 0.822, Gwet’s AC1: 0.796). Component analyses demonstrated the importance of evidence retrieval quality and modest benefits from illustrative in-context examples. SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM provides a benchmark for fine-grained assessment of RCT reporting completeness, while the automated pipeline establishes a robust baseline and shows potential for supporting authors, reviewers, and editors.
期刊介绍:
npj Digital Medicine is an online open-access journal that focuses on publishing peer-reviewed research in the field of digital medicine. The journal covers various aspects of digital medicine, including the application and implementation of digital and mobile technologies in clinical settings, virtual healthcare, and the use of artificial intelligence and informatics.
The primary goal of the journal is to support innovation and the advancement of healthcare through the integration of new digital and mobile technologies. When determining if a manuscript is suitable for publication, the journal considers four important criteria: novelty, clinical relevance, scientific rigor, and digital innovation.