TY - JOUR
T1 - Reporting guideline for the use of Generative Artificial intelligence tools in MEdical Research
T2 - The GAMER Statement
AU - Luo, Xufei
AU - Tham, Yih Chung
AU - Giuffrè, Mauro
AU - Ranisch, Robert
AU - Daher, Mohammad
AU - Lam, Kyle
AU - Eriksen, Alexander Viktor
AU - Hsu, Che Wei
AU - Ozaki, Akihiko
AU - De Moraes, Fabio Ynoe
AU - Khanna, Sahil
AU - Su, Kuan Pin
AU - Begagić, Emir
AU - Bian, Zhaoxiang
AU - Chen, Yaolong
AU - Estill, Janne
AU - The GAMER Working Group
A2 - Subhi, Yousif
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2025.
PY - 2025/12/1
Y1 - 2025/12/1
N2 - Objectives: Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools can enhance the quality and efficiency of medical research, but their improper use may result in plagiarism, academic fraud and unreliable findings. Transparent reporting of GAI use is essential, yet existing guidelines from journals and institutions are inconsistent, with no standardised principles. Design and setting: International online Delphi study. Participants: International experts in medicine and artificial intelligence. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure is the consensus level of the Delphi expert panel on the items of inclusion criteria for GAMER (Rreporting guideline for the use of Generative Artificial intelligence tools in MEdical Research). Results: The development process included a scoping review, two Delphi rounds and virtual meetings. 51 experts from 26 countries participated in the process (44 in the Delphi survey). The final checklist comprises nine reporting items: general declaration, GAI tool specifications, prompting techniques, tool's role in the study, declaration of new GAI model(s) developed, artificial intelligence-assisted sections in the manuscript, content verification, data privacy and impact on conclusions. Conclusion: GAMER provides universal and standardised guideline for GAI use in medical research, ensuring transparency, integrity and quality.
AB - Objectives: Generative artificial intelligence (GAI) tools can enhance the quality and efficiency of medical research, but their improper use may result in plagiarism, academic fraud and unreliable findings. Transparent reporting of GAI use is essential, yet existing guidelines from journals and institutions are inconsistent, with no standardised principles. Design and setting: International online Delphi study. Participants: International experts in medicine and artificial intelligence. Main outcome measures: The primary outcome measure is the consensus level of the Delphi expert panel on the items of inclusion criteria for GAMER (Rreporting guideline for the use of Generative Artificial intelligence tools in MEdical Research). Results: The development process included a scoping review, two Delphi rounds and virtual meetings. 51 experts from 26 countries participated in the process (44 in the Delphi survey). The final checklist comprises nine reporting items: general declaration, GAI tool specifications, prompting techniques, tool's role in the study, declaration of new GAI model(s) developed, artificial intelligence-assisted sections in the manuscript, content verification, data privacy and impact on conclusions. Conclusion: GAMER provides universal and standardised guideline for GAI use in medical research, ensuring transparency, integrity and quality.
KW - Epidemiology
KW - Quality of Health Care
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=105005168048&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113825
DO - 10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113825
M3 - Journal article
AN - SCOPUS:105005168048
SN - 2515-446X
VL - 30
SP - 390
EP - 400
JO - BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
JF - BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine
IS - 6
ER -