<HashMap><database>biostudies-literature</database><scores/><additional><omics_type>Unknown</omics_type><volume>30(6)</volume><submitter>Luo X</submitter><pubmed_abstract>&lt;h4>Objectives&lt;/h4>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.&lt;h4>Design and setting&lt;/h4>International online Delphi study.&lt;h4>Participants&lt;/h4>International experts in medicine and artificial intelligence.&lt;h4>Main outcome measures&lt;/h4>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).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>The development proce</pubmed_abstract><journal>BMJ evidence-based medicine</journal><pagination>390-400</pagination><full_dataset_link>https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12703294</full_dataset_link><repository>biostudies-literature</repository><pubmed_title>Reporting guideline for the use of Generative Artificial intelligence tools in MEdical Research: the GAMER Statement.</pubmed_title><pmcid>PMC12703294</pmcid><pubmed_authors>Rodrigues R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Persaud N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Su KP</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chumakov E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Mohan SK</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Litvin A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Mann SP</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yu QX</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Daher M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ranisch R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chen Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bian Z</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Wang Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>D'Amico R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Chen Q</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Giuffre M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Earp BD</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Righetto L</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Li D</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Yang W</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Eriksen AV</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Kivrak A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lee MS</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Li S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Begagic E</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Qureshi R</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Moraes FY</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Xu X</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Egli A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Curbo S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Feng S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ramanathan M</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Liu P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Norris SL</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ali SR</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Hsu CW</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Quiroga-Garza A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Khanna S</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Martinez-Ezquerro JD</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Sharp G</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Belisle-Pipon JC</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Moons P</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Tham YC</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Estill J</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>GAMER Working Group</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Bagde H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ko EA</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Blease C</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Ozaki A</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Anderson N</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Decker H</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Subhi Y</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Luo X</pubmed_authors><pubmed_authors>Lam K</pubmed_authors></additional><is_claimable>false</is_claimable><name>Reporting guideline for the use of Generative Artificial intelligence tools in MEdical Research: the GAMER Statement.</name><description>&lt;h4>Objectives&lt;/h4>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.&lt;h4>Design and setting&lt;/h4>International online Delphi study.&lt;h4>Participants&lt;/h4>International experts in medicine and artificial intelligence.&lt;h4>Main outcome measures&lt;/h4>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).&lt;h4>Results&lt;/h4>The development proce</description><dates><release>2025-01-01T00:00:00Z</release><publication>2025 Dec</publication><modification>2026-06-07T05:00:15.151Z</modification><creation>2026-06-07T03:06:35.671Z</creation></dates><accession>S-EPMC12703294</accession><cross_references><pubmed>40360239</pubmed><doi>10.1136/bmjebm-2025-113825</doi></cross_references></HashMap>