Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
PURPOSE: To comprehensively assess Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) adherence in medical imaging artificial intelligence (AI) literature by aggregating data from previous systematic and non-systematic reviews. METHODS: A systematic search of PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar identified reviews using the CLAIM to evaluate medical imaging AI studies. Reviews were analyzed at two levels: review level (33 reviews; 1,458 studies) and study level (421 unique studies from 15 reviews). The CLAIM adherence metrics (scores and compliance rates), baseline characteristics, factors influencing adherence, and critiques of the CLAIM were analyzed. RESULTS: = 0.004). Multiple readers provided an evaluation in 85% (28/33) of reviews, but only 11% (3/28) included a reliability analysis. An item-wise evaluation identified 11 underreported items (missing in ≥50% of studies). Among the 10 identified critiques, the most common were item inapplicability to diverse study types and subjective interpretations of fulfillment. CONCLUSION: Our two-level analysis revealed considerable reporting gaps, underreported items, factors related to adherence, and common CLAIM critiques, providing actionable insights for researchers and journals to improve transparency, reproducibility, and reporting quality in AI studies. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: By combining data from systematic and non-systematic reviews on CLAIM adherence, our comprehensive findings may serve as targets to help researchers and journals improve transparency, reproducibility, and reporting quality in AI studies.
Koçak et al. (Mon,) studied this question.