ObjectiveA multiplex amplification system was constructed based on the capillary electrophoresis platform for simultaneous detection of saliva, semen, and vaginal secretions using tissue-specific RNA markers. The aim of this study is to identify the tissue origin of suspicious body fluid stains found at crime scenes and determine whether the body fluid stains at the crime scene are one or several types among saliva, semen, and vaginal secretions. MethodsThirty saliva samples, forty semen samples, and forty vaginal secretion samples (half from 2015 and half from 2024) were collected from healthy adult volunteers. Through primer designing, system formulation, and PCR condition optimization, a multiplex fluorescent amplification system was constructed. The specificity, sensitivity, and detection ability for mixed samples of this system were investigated, and it was tested using real crime scene materials. In the primer design stage, to reduce the requirements for RNA template quality, the amplification products were set within 80-300 bp. In the system formulation stage, dominant and subordinate primers were mainly considered. By reducing the concentration of dominant primers and increasing that of subordinate primers, a capillary electrophoresis spectrum with an appropriate peak height ratio was finally obtained. Additionally, gradient experiments were designed to adjust the concentrations of PCR reagents and PCR amplification conditions, and multiple versions of DNA amplification enzymes were optimized to achieve the best experimental results. ResultsThrough statistical analysis, there was no significant difference in the capillary electrophoresis of the 3 types of body fluid samples from the two years (2015 and 2024), demonstrating that the sample preservation method in this study can preserve samples for a relatively long time. The composite amplification system constructed in this study exhibited high specificity for all 3 types of body fluid, with no cross-reactions between the markers of each type of body fluid. The minimum detection thresholds for the 3 types of body fluid reached 0.002 9, 0.001 5, and 0.42 mg/L, respectively. This system also had a high degree of discrimination for mixed samples, especially for semen-saliva mixtures, where each body fluid marker could still be successfully detected when the concentration ratio of semen to saliva was 100:1. Meanwhile, in the two actual cases presented in this article, the application of this composite amplification system performed outstandingly. ConclusionThe composite amplification detection system constructed in this study can achieve the correct screening of saliva, semen, and vaginal secretions, overcoming the problems such as low specificity and sensitivity of marker tests and unbalanced RFU values of each marker in previous studies. The specificity and sensitivity meet the practical work requirements, and the operation is simple. It provides an analytical and identification method for body fluid stains in actual case and is applicable to the identification of the tissue origin of biological evidence at crime scenes involving sexual assault, indecent assault, and other criminal acts. In the future, more types of body fluid markers will be screened to expand the types of body fluids detected by the system, and body fluid-specific cSNP and cInDel genetic markers will be introduced to infer the sources (individuals and types) of mixed and complex stains more accurately.

Objective: To evaluate the adherence of large language model (LLM)-based healthcare research to the Minimum Reporting Items for Clear Evaluation of Accuracy Reports of Large Language Models in Healthcare (MI-CLEAR-LLM) checklist, a framework designed to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of studies on the accuracy of LLMs for medical applications. Materials and Methods: A systematic PubMed search was conducted to identify articles on LLM performance published in high-ranking clinical medicine journals (the top 10% in each of the 59 specialties according to the 2023 Journal Impact Factor) from November 30, 2022, through June 25, 2024. Data on the six MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist items: 1) identification and specification of the LLM used, 2) stochasticity handling, 3) prompt wording and syntax, 4) prompt structuring, 5) prompt testing and optimization, and 6) independence of the test data—were independently extracted by two reviewers, and adherence was calculated for each item. Results: Of 159 studies, 100% (159/159) reported the name of the LLM, 96.9% (154/159) reported the version, and 91.8% (146/159) reported the manufacturer. However, only 54.1% (86/159) reported the training data cutoff date, 6.3% (10/159) documented access to web-based information, and 50.9% (81/159) provided the date of the query attempts. Clear documentation regarding stochasticity management was provided in 15.1% (24/159) of the studies. Regarding prompt details, 49.1% (78/159) provided exact prompt wording and syntax but only 34.0% (54/159) documented prompt-structuring practices. While 46.5% (74/159) of the studies detailed prompt testing, only 15.7% (25/159) explained the rationale for specific word choices. Test data independence was reported for only 13.2% (21/159) of the studies, and 56.6% (43/76) provided URLs for internet-sourced test data. Conclusion Although basic LLM identification details were relatively well reported, other key aspects, including stochasticity, prompts, and test data, were frequently underreported. Enhancing adherence to the MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist will allow LLM research to achieve greater transparency and will foster more credible and reliable future studies.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of an intelligent handheld ultrasound (US) device for assisting non-expert general practitioners (GPs) in detecting carotid plaques (CPs) in community populations. Methods: This prospective parallel controlled trial recruited 111 consecutive community residents. All of them underwent examinations by non-expert GPs and specialist doctors using handheld US devices (setting A, setting B, and setting C). The results of setting C with specialist doctors were considered the gold standard. Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and the features of CPs were measured and recorded. The diagnostic performance of GPs in distinguishing CPs was evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic curve. Inter-observer agreement was compared using the intragroup correlation coefficient (ICC). Questionnaires were completed to evaluate clinical benefits. Results: Among the 111 community residents, 80, 96, and 112 CPs were detected in settings A, B, and C, respectively. Setting B exhibited better diagnostic performance than setting A for detecting CPs (area under the curve, 0.856 vs. 0.749; P<0.01). Setting B had better consistency with setting C than setting A in CIMT measurement and the assessment of CPs (ICC, 0.731 to 0.923). Moreover, measurements in setting B required less time than the other two settings (44.59 seconds vs. 108.87 seconds vs. 126.13 seconds, both P<0.01). Conclusion Using an intelligent handheld US device, GPs can perform CP screening and achieve a diagnostic capability comparable to that of specialist doctors.

Objective: To evaluate the adherence of large language model (LLM)-based healthcare research to the Minimum Reporting Items for Clear Evaluation of Accuracy Reports of Large Language Models in Healthcare (MI-CLEAR-LLM) checklist, a framework designed to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of studies on the accuracy of LLMs for medical applications. Materials and Methods: A systematic PubMed search was conducted to identify articles on LLM performance published in high-ranking clinical medicine journals (the top 10% in each of the 59 specialties according to the 2023 Journal Impact Factor) from November 30, 2022, through June 25, 2024. Data on the six MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist items: 1) identification and specification of the LLM used, 2) stochasticity handling, 3) prompt wording and syntax, 4) prompt structuring, 5) prompt testing and optimization, and 6) independence of the test data—were independently extracted by two reviewers, and adherence was calculated for each item. Results: Of 159 studies, 100% (159/159) reported the name of the LLM, 96.9% (154/159) reported the version, and 91.8% (146/159) reported the manufacturer. However, only 54.1% (86/159) reported the training data cutoff date, 6.3% (10/159) documented access to web-based information, and 50.9% (81/159) provided the date of the query attempts. Clear documentation regarding stochasticity management was provided in 15.1% (24/159) of the studies. Regarding prompt details, 49.1% (78/159) provided exact prompt wording and syntax but only 34.0% (54/159) documented prompt-structuring practices. While 46.5% (74/159) of the studies detailed prompt testing, only 15.7% (25/159) explained the rationale for specific word choices. Test data independence was reported for only 13.2% (21/159) of the studies, and 56.6% (43/76) provided URLs for internet-sourced test data. Conclusion Although basic LLM identification details were relatively well reported, other key aspects, including stochasticity, prompts, and test data, were frequently underreported. Enhancing adherence to the MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist will allow LLM research to achieve greater transparency and will foster more credible and reliable future studies.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of an intelligent handheld ultrasound (US) device for assisting non-expert general practitioners (GPs) in detecting carotid plaques (CPs) in community populations. Methods: This prospective parallel controlled trial recruited 111 consecutive community residents. All of them underwent examinations by non-expert GPs and specialist doctors using handheld US devices (setting A, setting B, and setting C). The results of setting C with specialist doctors were considered the gold standard. Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and the features of CPs were measured and recorded. The diagnostic performance of GPs in distinguishing CPs was evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic curve. Inter-observer agreement was compared using the intragroup correlation coefficient (ICC). Questionnaires were completed to evaluate clinical benefits. Results: Among the 111 community residents, 80, 96, and 112 CPs were detected in settings A, B, and C, respectively. Setting B exhibited better diagnostic performance than setting A for detecting CPs (area under the curve, 0.856 vs. 0.749; P<0.01). Setting B had better consistency with setting C than setting A in CIMT measurement and the assessment of CPs (ICC, 0.731 to 0.923). Moreover, measurements in setting B required less time than the other two settings (44.59 seconds vs. 108.87 seconds vs. 126.13 seconds, both P<0.01). Conclusion Using an intelligent handheld US device, GPs can perform CP screening and achieve a diagnostic capability comparable to that of specialist doctors.

Objective: To evaluate the adherence of large language model (LLM)-based healthcare research to the Minimum Reporting Items for Clear Evaluation of Accuracy Reports of Large Language Models in Healthcare (MI-CLEAR-LLM) checklist, a framework designed to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of studies on the accuracy of LLMs for medical applications. Materials and Methods: A systematic PubMed search was conducted to identify articles on LLM performance published in high-ranking clinical medicine journals (the top 10% in each of the 59 specialties according to the 2023 Journal Impact Factor) from November 30, 2022, through June 25, 2024. Data on the six MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist items: 1) identification and specification of the LLM used, 2) stochasticity handling, 3) prompt wording and syntax, 4) prompt structuring, 5) prompt testing and optimization, and 6) independence of the test data—were independently extracted by two reviewers, and adherence was calculated for each item. Results: Of 159 studies, 100% (159/159) reported the name of the LLM, 96.9% (154/159) reported the version, and 91.8% (146/159) reported the manufacturer. However, only 54.1% (86/159) reported the training data cutoff date, 6.3% (10/159) documented access to web-based information, and 50.9% (81/159) provided the date of the query attempts. Clear documentation regarding stochasticity management was provided in 15.1% (24/159) of the studies. Regarding prompt details, 49.1% (78/159) provided exact prompt wording and syntax but only 34.0% (54/159) documented prompt-structuring practices. While 46.5% (74/159) of the studies detailed prompt testing, only 15.7% (25/159) explained the rationale for specific word choices. Test data independence was reported for only 13.2% (21/159) of the studies, and 56.6% (43/76) provided URLs for internet-sourced test data. Conclusion Although basic LLM identification details were relatively well reported, other key aspects, including stochasticity, prompts, and test data, were frequently underreported. Enhancing adherence to the MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist will allow LLM research to achieve greater transparency and will foster more credible and reliable future studies.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of an intelligent handheld ultrasound (US) device for assisting non-expert general practitioners (GPs) in detecting carotid plaques (CPs) in community populations. Methods: This prospective parallel controlled trial recruited 111 consecutive community residents. All of them underwent examinations by non-expert GPs and specialist doctors using handheld US devices (setting A, setting B, and setting C). The results of setting C with specialist doctors were considered the gold standard. Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and the features of CPs were measured and recorded. The diagnostic performance of GPs in distinguishing CPs was evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic curve. Inter-observer agreement was compared using the intragroup correlation coefficient (ICC). Questionnaires were completed to evaluate clinical benefits. Results: Among the 111 community residents, 80, 96, and 112 CPs were detected in settings A, B, and C, respectively. Setting B exhibited better diagnostic performance than setting A for detecting CPs (area under the curve, 0.856 vs. 0.749; P<0.01). Setting B had better consistency with setting C than setting A in CIMT measurement and the assessment of CPs (ICC, 0.731 to 0.923). Moreover, measurements in setting B required less time than the other two settings (44.59 seconds vs. 108.87 seconds vs. 126.13 seconds, both P<0.01). Conclusion Using an intelligent handheld US device, GPs can perform CP screening and achieve a diagnostic capability comparable to that of specialist doctors.

Objective: To evaluate the adherence of large language model (LLM)-based healthcare research to the Minimum Reporting Items for Clear Evaluation of Accuracy Reports of Large Language Models in Healthcare (MI-CLEAR-LLM) checklist, a framework designed to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of studies on the accuracy of LLMs for medical applications. Materials and Methods: A systematic PubMed search was conducted to identify articles on LLM performance published in high-ranking clinical medicine journals (the top 10% in each of the 59 specialties according to the 2023 Journal Impact Factor) from November 30, 2022, through June 25, 2024. Data on the six MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist items: 1) identification and specification of the LLM used, 2) stochasticity handling, 3) prompt wording and syntax, 4) prompt structuring, 5) prompt testing and optimization, and 6) independence of the test data—were independently extracted by two reviewers, and adherence was calculated for each item. Results: Of 159 studies, 100% (159/159) reported the name of the LLM, 96.9% (154/159) reported the version, and 91.8% (146/159) reported the manufacturer. However, only 54.1% (86/159) reported the training data cutoff date, 6.3% (10/159) documented access to web-based information, and 50.9% (81/159) provided the date of the query attempts. Clear documentation regarding stochasticity management was provided in 15.1% (24/159) of the studies. Regarding prompt details, 49.1% (78/159) provided exact prompt wording and syntax but only 34.0% (54/159) documented prompt-structuring practices. While 46.5% (74/159) of the studies detailed prompt testing, only 15.7% (25/159) explained the rationale for specific word choices. Test data independence was reported for only 13.2% (21/159) of the studies, and 56.6% (43/76) provided URLs for internet-sourced test data. Conclusion Although basic LLM identification details were relatively well reported, other key aspects, including stochasticity, prompts, and test data, were frequently underreported. Enhancing adherence to the MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist will allow LLM research to achieve greater transparency and will foster more credible and reliable future studies.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of an intelligent handheld ultrasound (US) device for assisting non-expert general practitioners (GPs) in detecting carotid plaques (CPs) in community populations. Methods: This prospective parallel controlled trial recruited 111 consecutive community residents. All of them underwent examinations by non-expert GPs and specialist doctors using handheld US devices (setting A, setting B, and setting C). The results of setting C with specialist doctors were considered the gold standard. Carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT) and the features of CPs were measured and recorded. The diagnostic performance of GPs in distinguishing CPs was evaluated using a receiver operating characteristic curve. Inter-observer agreement was compared using the intragroup correlation coefficient (ICC). Questionnaires were completed to evaluate clinical benefits. Results: Among the 111 community residents, 80, 96, and 112 CPs were detected in settings A, B, and C, respectively. Setting B exhibited better diagnostic performance than setting A for detecting CPs (area under the curve, 0.856 vs. 0.749; P<0.01). Setting B had better consistency with setting C than setting A in CIMT measurement and the assessment of CPs (ICC, 0.731 to 0.923). Moreover, measurements in setting B required less time than the other two settings (44.59 seconds vs. 108.87 seconds vs. 126.13 seconds, both P<0.01). Conclusion Using an intelligent handheld US device, GPs can perform CP screening and achieve a diagnostic capability comparable to that of specialist doctors.

Objective: To evaluate the adherence of large language model (LLM)-based healthcare research to the Minimum Reporting Items for Clear Evaluation of Accuracy Reports of Large Language Models in Healthcare (MI-CLEAR-LLM) checklist, a framework designed to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of studies on the accuracy of LLMs for medical applications. Materials and Methods: A systematic PubMed search was conducted to identify articles on LLM performance published in high-ranking clinical medicine journals (the top 10% in each of the 59 specialties according to the 2023 Journal Impact Factor) from November 30, 2022, through June 25, 2024. Data on the six MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist items: 1) identification and specification of the LLM used, 2) stochasticity handling, 3) prompt wording and syntax, 4) prompt structuring, 5) prompt testing and optimization, and 6) independence of the test data—were independently extracted by two reviewers, and adherence was calculated for each item. Results: Of 159 studies, 100% (159/159) reported the name of the LLM, 96.9% (154/159) reported the version, and 91.8% (146/159) reported the manufacturer. However, only 54.1% (86/159) reported the training data cutoff date, 6.3% (10/159) documented access to web-based information, and 50.9% (81/159) provided the date of the query attempts. Clear documentation regarding stochasticity management was provided in 15.1% (24/159) of the studies. Regarding prompt details, 49.1% (78/159) provided exact prompt wording and syntax but only 34.0% (54/159) documented prompt-structuring practices. While 46.5% (74/159) of the studies detailed prompt testing, only 15.7% (25/159) explained the rationale for specific word choices. Test data independence was reported for only 13.2% (21/159) of the studies, and 56.6% (43/76) provided URLs for internet-sourced test data. Conclusion Although basic LLM identification details were relatively well reported, other key aspects, including stochasticity, prompts, and test data, were frequently underreported. Enhancing adherence to the MI-CLEAR-LLM checklist will allow LLM research to achieve greater transparency and will foster more credible and reliable future studies.