Marwan Bukhari

Emre Bilgin, Ebru Ozturk, Meera Shah et al.

Introduction: Evaluating compliance with the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement can be time-consuming and subjective. This study compares STROBE assessments from large language models (LLMs), a human reviewer panel, and the original manuscript authors in observational rheumatology research. Methods: Guided by the GRRAS and DEAL Pathway B frameworks, 17 rheumatology articles were independently assessed. Evaluations used the 22-item STROBE checklist, completed by the authors, a five-person human panel (ranging from junior to senior professionals), and two LLMs (ChatGPT-5.2, Gemini-3Pro). Items were grouped into Methodological Rigor and Presentation and Context domains. Inter-rater reliability was calculated using Gwet's Agreement Coefficient (AC1). Results: Overall agreement across all reviewers was 85.0% (AC1=0.826). Domain stratification showed almost perfect agreement for Presentation and Context (AC1=0.841) and substantial agreement for Methodological Rigor (AC1=0.803). Although LLMs achieved complete agreement (AC1=1.000) with all human reviewers on standard formatting elements, their agreement with human reviewers and authors declined on complex items. For example, regarding the item on loss to follow-up, the agreement between Gemini 3 Pro and the senior reviewer was AC1=-0.252, while the agreement with the authors was only fair. Additionally, ChatGPT-5.2 generally demonstrated higher agreement with human reviewers than Gemini-3Pro on specific methodological items. Conclusion: While LLMs show potential for basic STROBE screening, their lower agreement with human experts on complex methodological items likely reflects a reliance on surface-level information. Currently, these models appear more reliable for standardizing straightforward checks than for replacing expert human judgment in evaluating observational research.

Alvaro Lopez Pellicer, Andre Mariucci, Plamen Angelov et al.

Bone health studies are crucial in medical practice for the early detection and treatment of Osteopenia and Osteoporosis. Clinicians usually make a diagnosis based on densitometry (DEXA scans) and patient history. The applications of AI in this field are ongoing research. Most successful methods rely on deep learning models that use vision alone (DEXA/X-ray imagery) and focus on prediction accuracy, while explainability is often disregarded and left to post hoc assessments of input contributions. We propose ProtoMedX, a multi-modal (multimodal) model that uses both DEXA scans of the lumbar spine and patient records. ProtoMedX's prototype-based architecture is explainable by design, which is crucial for medical applications, especially in the context of the upcoming EU AI Act, as it allows explicit analysis of model decisions, including incorrect ones. ProtoMedX demonstrates state-of-the-art performance in bone health classification while also providing explanations that can be visually understood by clinicians. Using a dataset of 4,160 real NHS patients, the proposed ProtoMedX achieves 87.58% accuracy in vision-only tasks and 89.8% in its multi-modal variant, both surpassing existing published methods.