Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Introduction Generative artificial intelligence is being increasingly incorporated into medical research, including medical and health professions education research. However the extent to which the use of Generative AI is adequately reported remains an important area of concern. Transparent reporting of its use is essential for interpretation of research findings. The GAMER checklist provides a structured framework for reporting generative artificial intelligence use in medical research. Objective To assess reporting of generative AI use in published medical and health professions education research using the GAMER checklist. Methodology A descriptive cross sectional audit was conducted using studies from PubMed and ERIC with Google Scholar as a supplementary source. Research articles published between 13 May 2025 and 25 October 2026 were screened for eligibility. Seven studies were included and assessment was done using a nine item GAMER checklist. Reporting frequencies and percentages were calculated for each item. Results All seven studies reported general use of generative AI and its role in the study. Five studies adequately reported tool specifications and prompting techniques were adequately reported in four. Content verification was reported in four studies while data privacy was addressed in three. AI use in manuscript preparation was disclosed only by one study. No study explicitly reported the influence of generative AI on interpretation of findings or conclusions. Conclusion Although the included studies consistently reported the general use and educational role of generative AI, important gaps remained in reporting other aspects of use of generative AI. Wider adoption of the reporting guidelines such as the GAMER checklist may improve transparency and reproducibility in medical and health-professions education research. Keywords Generative artificial intelligence, medical research, health professions education, GAMER checklist, research transparency.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sarode et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 8 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: