Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 20, 2026
A Postoperative Evaluation Guideline for Computer-Assisted Reconstruction of the Mandible
Published on: January 28, 2020
Exploring the Endorsement and Implementation of Artificial Intelligence Guidelines in Leading Orthopaedic and Sports
Josh Major1, Kurt Mahnken1, Alec Young1
1Office of Medical Student Research, Oklahoma State University Center for Health Sciences, Tulsa, Oklahoma.
Background:
The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) in orthopaedics and sports medicine (OSM) has transformed clinical practice and scientific inquiry. However, the increasing reliance on AI raises critical concerns regarding transparency, ethical considerations, and reproducibility. The aim of this study was to systematically evaluate the editorial policies of leading OSM journals concerning AI usage and the endorsement of AI-specific reporting guidelines (RGs).
Methods:
A cross-sectional review was conducted in accordance with STROBE (Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology) guidelines. The top 100 peer-reviewed OSM journals were identified using the 2023 SCImago Journal Rank (SJR). Data extraction included journal characteristics, AI-related policies within Instructions for Authors, and references to AI-specific RGs. Data were collected in a masked, duplicate fashion, with discrepancies resolved through consensus.
Results:
Of the 100 journals analyzed, 94% referenced AI in their editorial policies, all of which explicitly prohibited AI authorship and required the disclosure of AI use in manuscript preparation. AI-generated content was permitted in 82% of journals. AI-assisted image generation was permitted by 60% of journals and explicitly prohibited by 34%. Despite these policies, only 1% of journals referenced AI-specific RGs, with the Checklist for Artificial Intelligence in Medical Imaging (CLAIM) being the sole guideline mentioned.
Conclusions:
While most of the OSM journals had established policies on AI usage, there was a notable lack of standardization, particularly with respect to AI-generated images. Additionally, the absence of AI-specific RG endorsements highlights a gap in methodological guidance. Standardizing AI policies and encouraging the adoption of RGs could enhance the transparency, reproducibility, and ethical integrity of AI-driven research in OSM.
