SPIRIT-CONSORT-ELM: element-level annotated dataset and large language model approach for assessing randomized controlled trial reporting

IF 18 1区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
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.
spirit - consortium - elm:用于评估随机对照试验报告的元素级注释数据集和大型语言模型方法
随机对照试验(rct)是评估干预措施利弊的核心,但不完整的报告削弱了其可验证性和有用性。尽管SPIRIT和CONSORT报告指南促进了RCT方案和结果出版物的完整报告,但许多RCT报告仍然不完整。自动手稿检查有助于在出版前提高报告的完整性。我们之前开发了SPIRIT-CONSORT- tm,这是一个包含200篇文章(100篇方案-结果出版物对)的语料库,注释了来自SPIRIT 2013和CONSORT 2010的83个清单项目,并训练了项目级别评估的模型。然而,检查表项可能包含多个先前的工作没有捕获或评估的组成元素。在这里,我们使用元素级注释(spirit - conder - elm)扩展了语料库,并将评估制定为通过针对特定报告元素的119个问题来操作的机器阅读理解任务。两名注释者独立评估了50篇文章(25对),通过讨论解决差异;一位注释者评估了剩下的150篇文章。然后,我们开发了一个将基于pubmedbert的证据检索与基于gpt -5的问答相结合的自动化管道。注释者之间的一致性高(Gwet的AC1: 0.782),管道实现了高性能(F1: 0.822, Gwet的AC1: 0.796)。成分分析证明了证据检索质量的重要性和说明性上下文示例的适度益处。spirit - conber - elm为RCT报告完整性的细粒度评估提供了一个基准,而自动化管道建立了一个健壮的基线,并显示了支持作者、审稿人和编辑的潜力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
25.10
自引率
3.30%
发文量
170
审稿时长
15 weeks
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.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书