medsci-skills 4.1.0

package/skills/write-paper/references/exemplar_methods/README.md

@@ -0,0 +1,38 @@
+# Exemplar Methods sections — structure models, not prose to copy
+
+`write-paper` teaches Methods *structure* (PICO, the reporting-guideline cross-reference,
+the backbone-article strategy) but had no worked example of what a complete, well-ordered
+Methods section looks like end to end. This directory fills that gap with **structure
+exemplars**: each shows the paragraph order for a study type and, for every paragraph, *what
+it must establish* — with placeholder specifics, never copied text.
+
+These are **authored from scratch as teaching models**, not extracted from any published
+paper. Use them to check that a draft's Methods has every load-bearing paragraph in a sane
+order; do not copy wording.
+
+## How they are used
+
+In `write-paper` Phase 3 (Methods), after loading `section_guides/methods.md`: pick the
+exemplar matching the study type and confirm the draft establishes each element the
+exemplar lists (design, setting/dates, eligibility, the index test/exposure, the reference
+standard/outcome, sample-size justification, the statistical plan, and the reporting-guideline
+fit). A missing element is a gap to fill before drafting Results.
+
+## Contents
+
+- `diagnostic_accuracy_stard.md` — an index-test vs reference-standard accuracy study (STARD).
+- `ai_validation_tripod_claim.md` — an AI/ML model development + validation study (TRIPOD+AI / CLAIM).
+- `observational_cohort_strobe.md` — an exposure→outcome observational cohort (STROBE).
+
+## Curator guidelines (for adding more)
+
+- **Synthetic only.** Write the structure with placeholder specifics (`[scanner/vendor]`,
+  `[N]`, `[YYYY–YYYY]`); never paste a real paper's Methods, and use no real citations, no
+  PII, English only.
+- **One study type per file**, paragraph by paragraph, each line stating *what the paragraph
+  must establish* (not finished prose).
+- **Anchor to the reporting guideline** the study type maps to, naming the critical items
+  (see `peer-review/references/reviewer_calibration/compliance_floor.md`).
+- **Name the common omission** for each study type (the paragraph drafts most often skip).
+- Keep each file ~50–90 lines. Cross-reference `section_guides/methods.md` and the relevant
+  `paper_types/` template rather than duplicating them.

package/skills/write-paper/references/exemplar_methods/ai_validation_tripod_claim.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Methods structure — AI/ML model development + validation (TRIPOD+AI / CLAIM)
+
+A structure model for a clinical AI/ML model study. Each heading is a paragraph; each bullet
+is *what it must establish*. Fill the `[brackets]`; do not copy this text.
+
+## Study design and data sources
+- Design (retrospective/prospective), the prediction task, and the intended use (where in
+  the workflow the output acts, and which decision it informs).
+- Data sources, sites, and dates for each split; how the cohort was assembled.
+
+## Participants, inputs, and outcome
+- Eligibility as a numbered list; the population the model is meant to serve.
+- Input data types and exactly which fields the model sees (flag any field that could carry
+  the label — report a no-leaky-field sensitivity analysis or mask it).
+- Outcome/label definition, who assigned it, and the reference standard for the label.
+
+## Data partition and leakage control
+- Train / validation / test split **by patient** (not by image/record), and how
+  independence was enforced; any external (geographic/temporal) test set.
+- Explicit statement that no test data informed development (preprocessing, feature/threshold
+  selection, model choice) — leakage inflates every metric and is invisible in the results.
+
+## Model development
+- Architecture, key hyperparameters, training procedure, and how the operating threshold was
+  chosen (and on which split).
+- Whether training was from scratch or fine-tuned; for an adaptation claim, a same-backbone
+  zero-shot/few-shot baseline.
+- Reproducibility: hardware/software/versions, random-seed handling, code/model availability.
+
+## Evaluation
+- Primary metric(s) with 95% CIs; **calibration** (slope/intercept or a calibration plot),
+  not discrimination alone, when probabilities drive a decision.
+- Comparator: if vs clinicians, the **same task on the same inputs under the same
+  constraints**, with a test of the difference (not two standalone AUCs); decision-curve /
+  net-benefit if a deployment/utility claim is made.
+
+## Sample size
+- Events-per-variable / minimum test-set events for the target precision, or the
+  available-sample justification.
+
+## Reporting-guideline fit
+- TRIPOD+AI (name base TRIPOD + the AI extension) and/or CLAIM 2024. Critical items: input
+  data + outcome, partition/leakage control, model + training details, calibration.
+
+## Common omission
+- **Calibration** and a **patient-level** (not image-level) split — the two most commonly
+  missing, and both can make excellent-looking metrics misleading.

package/skills/write-paper/references/exemplar_methods/diagnostic_accuracy_stard.md

@@ -0,0 +1,50 @@
+# Methods structure — diagnostic-accuracy study (STARD)
+
+A structure model for an index-test-vs-reference-standard accuracy study. Each heading is a
+paragraph; each bullet is *what the paragraph must establish*. Placeholders in `[brackets]`
+stand for the study's real specifics — fill them; do not copy this text.
+
+## Study design and oversight
+- State the design (prospective / retrospective, consecutive / case-control sampling — and
+  why; case-control sampling inflates accuracy and must be named).
+- Setting and dates: `[single/multi-center]`, `[YYYY–YYYY]`, recruitment source.
+- Ethics approval + consent (or waiver) and registration if applicable.
+
+## Participants and eligibility
+- Eligibility as a numbered list: inclusion `(1)…(2)…`, exclusion `(1)…(2)…`.
+- The clinical question and the intended-use population the index test is meant to serve.
+- Flow that lets the reader rebuild a 2×2 (enrolled → tested → analyzed; exclusions with
+  reasons) — this is what the STARD diagram renders.
+
+## Index test
+- What it is, who performed/read it, their experience, and blinding to the reference
+  standard and to clinical data.
+- Acquisition specifics: `[scanner/vendor/field strength]`, protocol, software/version.
+- The positivity threshold/criterion and whether it was pre-specified or data-derived.
+
+## Reference standard
+- The reference standard and its rationale (the validity hierarchy: pathology > imaging
+  panel consensus > clinical follow-up at `[interval]`).
+- Who applied it, their blinding to the index test, and the index↔reference time interval
+  (verification timing).
+- How indeterminate/non-diagnostic results were handled (ITD vs per-protocol — state which).
+
+## Sample size
+- The accuracy target and precision (expected sensitivity/specificity + CI half-width) or
+  the available-sample justification; the prevalence assumed.
+
+## Statistical analysis
+- Sensitivity/specificity with 95% CIs; PPV/NPV with the prevalence they assume.
+- Comparison method if two tests (paired McNemar / difference in AUC with a test of the
+  difference — not two standalone AUCs), and any subgroup/multiplicity handling.
+- Missing/indeterminate handling and any sensitivity analysis.
+- Software + version.
+
+## Reporting-guideline fit
+- STARD 2015 (or STARD-AI for an AI index test — name BOTH base and extension). Critical
+  items: reference standard + rationale, reader blinding, participant flow, indeterminate
+  handling (see `peer-review/references/reviewer_calibration/compliance_floor.md`).
+
+## Common omission
+- Reader **blinding** to the reference standard and the **index↔reference time interval**
+  — the two details most often missing, and both bias the headline accuracy if unaddressed.

package/skills/write-paper/references/exemplar_methods/observational_cohort_strobe.md

@@ -0,0 +1,43 @@
+# Methods structure — observational cohort (STROBE)
+
+A structure model for an exposure→outcome cohort study. Each heading is a paragraph; each
+bullet is *what it must establish*. Fill the `[brackets]`; do not copy this text.
+
+## Study design and setting
+- Design (prospective / retrospective cohort) and why; data source (`[registry / EMR /
+  health-screening DB]`), sites, and the enrollment and follow-up dates (keep enrollment
+  distinct from follow-up end — do not conflate them).
+- Ethics approval / consent or waiver; registration if applicable.
+
+## Participants and eligibility
+- Eligibility as a numbered list (inclusion / exclusion).
+- The assembly cascade with counts (source → eligible → analytic), so the STROBE flow
+  reconciles (start − Σ exclusions = analytic N).
+
+## Variables — exposure, outcome, covariates
+- Exposure definition, how it was measured/classified, and the cut-points with their source
+  (cite the canonical definition; quote the data-dictionary mapping for a DB variable).
+- Outcome definition, ascertainment, and timing.
+- Covariates/confounders and how each was measured; pre-specify the adjustment set and its
+  rationale (a DAG), not a data-driven selection.
+
+## Bias, missing data, and study size
+- Sources of bias and how they were addressed (selection, measurement, confounding).
+- How missing data were handled (complete-case vs imputation — state which; complete-case
+  must reconcile: total − missing = complete).
+- Study size: the precision / event-budget justification (events per variable for the model).
+
+## Statistical analysis
+- The primary model and estimand (the contrast and effect measure), with 95% CIs; the
+  pre-registered primary if applicable (do not reassign the primary after seeing results).
+- Subgroup/interaction and sensitivity analyses, multiplicity handling, and how continuous
+  variables were modeled (linearity assumption).
+- Software + version.
+
+## Reporting-guideline fit
+- STROBE. Critical items: eligibility/selection, exposure/outcome definitions, missing-data
+  handling, participant flow (see `peer-review/references/reviewer_calibration/compliance_floor.md`).
+
+## Common omission
+- A pre-specified **adjustment set with rationale** and explicit **missing-data handling** —
+  the two paragraphs cohort drafts most often skip, and both are first-line reviewer targets.

package/skills/write-paper/references/journal_profiles/AJNR.md

@@ -0,0 +1,185 @@
+# Journal Profile: AJNR (American Journal of Neuroradiology)
+
+## Basic Information
+
+- **Publisher:** American Society of Neuroradiology (ASNR)
+- **Impact Factor:** ~4.5–5.0 (2023–2024)
+- **Scope:** Diagnostic and interventional neuroradiology; brain, spine, head/neck; pediatric neuroradiology; functional MRI; neuro-oncology imaging
+- **Open Access:** Optional (Hybrid OA)
+- **Language:** American English
+
+---
+
+## Scope — Covered Topics
+
+**Diagnostic Neuroradiology:**
+- Brain tumor imaging (glioma, meningioma, metastases, lymphoma)
+- White matter disease and demyelination
+- Cerebrovascular disease (stroke imaging, vessel wall MRI)
+- Neurodegenerative disorders
+- Spinal cord imaging and spinal stenosis
+- Head and neck imaging (temporal bone, orbit, paranasal sinuses, salivary glands)
+- Pediatric neuroimaging
+- Advanced imaging: MR spectroscopy, perfusion, diffusion, fMRI, DTI
+
+**Interventional Neuroradiology:**
+- All topics covered by INSI — can publish in AJNR if broad neuroradiology readership would benefit
+
+**Emerging Topics:**
+- AI/machine learning in neuroradiology (increasingly prominent)
+- Radiomics for brain tumors
+- Quantitative MRI biomarkers
+
+---
+
+## Manuscript Types and Word Limits
+
+| Type | Body Word Limit | Abstract | Figures | References |
+|------|----------------|----------|---------|------------|
+| Original Research | 3500 words | 250 words | 8 | 40 |
+| Review | 5000 words | 250 words | 10 | 60 |
+| Technical Note | 2500 words | 200 words | 6 | 25 |
+| Case Report | 1500 words | 200 words | 6 | 15 |
+| Letters | 500 words | None | 2 | 5 |
+
+---
+
+## Abstract Requirements
+
+**Structured abstract, 250 words:**
+
+```
+BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: [Clinical problem and study rationale]
+MATERIALS AND METHODS: [Design, participants, imaging, analysis]
+RESULTS: [Key results with 95% CI and exact p-values]
+CONCLUSIONS: [Main finding and clinical implication]
+```
+
+Note: AJNR uses ALL CAPS for abstract section headers.
+
+---
+
+## Required Journal-Specific Element
+
+### "What This Adds to the Published Literature" Box
+
+3 bullet points at the end of the manuscript (before References).
+
+Each bullet ≤ 2 sentences. Cover:
+1. What makes this study methodologically or clinically novel
+2. Main quantitative finding
+3. Clinical or research implication
+
+Example:
+```
+WHAT THIS ARTICLE ADDS TO THE PUBLISHED LITERATURE
+• This study provides the first multi-center validation of a deep learning
+  model for automated glioma segmentation on standard clinical MRI sequences.
+• The model achieved a median Dice similarity coefficient of 0.87 (IQR,
+  0.79–0.92) for whole tumor segmentation, comparable to expert neuroradiologists.
+• This externally validated tool has potential for reducing segmentation time
+  in clinical workflows and enabling standardized tumor measurement.
+```
+
+---
+
+## Required Sections
+
+1. **Introduction** (200–400 words) — end with explicit study purpose
+2. **Materials and Methods**
+   - Ethics: IRB approval, consent or waiver, HIPAA compliance (if US institution) or equivalent
+   - Study Design and Participants
+   - MR/CT Protocol (acquisition parameters in sufficient detail)
+   - Image Analysis / Reference Standard
+   - Statistical Analysis
+3. **Results**
+4. **Discussion** — include explicit Limitations paragraph
+5. **Conclusions** — 1–3 sentences maximum
+6. **"What This Adds..."** — 3 bullets
+
+---
+
+## Supplementary Material Convention
+
+AJNR uses "eTables" and "eFigures" for supplementary content:
+- Reference as: "eTable 1 (available online)" or "eFigure 1 (available online)"
+- Include in submission separately from main manuscript
+- No limit on number of eTables/eFigures
+
+---
+
+## MRI Protocol Reporting
+
+For MRI studies, include in Methods or as eTable:
+
+| Sequence | TR/TE (ms) | TI (ms) | Flip angle | Slice thickness (mm) | Matrix | FOV (cm) | Field strength |
+|----------|------------|---------|------------|----------------------|--------|----------|----------------|
+| T1 MPRAGE | ... | ... | ... | 1.0 | ... | ... | 3T |
+| T2 FLAIR | ... | — | ... | 3.0 | ... | ... | 3T |
+
+---
+
+## Statistical Reporting
+
+- Exact p-values required (P = .034; P < .001 if below threshold)
+- 95% CI for all primary and secondary outcomes
+- ROC analysis: AUC with 95% CI, sensitivity, specificity at optimal cutpoint
+- DeLong test for ROC comparison
+- Report N at each follow-up time point
+
+---
+
+## Figure Requirements
+
+- **Resolution:** 300 DPI minimum
+- **Format:** TIFF or EPS
+- **Clinical images:** High-quality screenshots from PACS; annotate with arrows, arrowheads (use consistent labeling throughout)
+- **Supplementary figures:** As eFigures — unlimited
+- **Color:** Available online; print is grayscale — design figures accordingly
+
+---
+
+## Common Rejection Reasons
+
+1. **Low clinical relevance** — AJNR emphasizes clinical neuroradiology; purely technical papers without clinical application are less competitive
+2. **Missing "What This Adds" box** — editors check immediately on submission
+3. **Inadequate MRI protocol description** — sequence parameters must be complete
+4. **Small sample size without justification** — N < 50 for most original research; technical notes can be smaller
+5. **Mixing of magnet/sequence types without analysis** — scanner heterogeneity must be addressed (mixed-effects model or sensitivity analysis)
+6. **No blinding of image readers** — outcomes assessors must be blinded to clinical data and group assignment
+7. **Abstract word limit exceeded** — 250 words strictly enforced
+
+---
+
+## Positioning Strategy
+
+### Choose AJNR over INSI when:
+
+- Study encompasses both diagnostic and interventional neuroradiology
+- Study is primarily diagnostic (imaging biomarkers, protocol optimization)
+- Study targets the broader neuroradiology readership
+- AI/ML study in neuroradiology
+
+### Choose INSI over AJNR when:
+
+- Study is purely about interventional technique, devices, or endovascular outcomes
+- Target audience is specifically neurointerventionalists
+
+### Choose Radiology over AJNR when:
+
+- Practice-changing finding that belongs to the flagship journal
+- Multi-center prospective study (Radiology has higher impact but higher bar)
+
+---
+
+## Author Guidelines URL
+
+https://www.ajnr.org/page/authors
+
+---
+
+## Typical Turnaround Times
+
+- Initial decision: 4–6 weeks
+- Revision deadline: 60–90 days (strict)
+- Acceptance to publication: 4–8 weeks

package/skills/write-paper/references/journal_profiles/AJR.md

@@ -0,0 +1,149 @@
+# American Journal of Roentgenology (AJR)
+
+## Journal Identity
+
+- **Full name**: American Journal of Roentgenology
+- **Abbreviation**: AJR Am J Roentgenol
+- **Publisher**: American Roentgen Ray Society (ARRS)
+- **ISSN**: 0361-803X (print), 1546-3141 (online)
+- **Frequency**: Monthly
+- **Impact Factor**: ~5.0 (2024)
+
+## Manuscript Types and Word Limits
+
+| Type | Abstract | Manuscript Body | Figures | Tables |
+|------|----------|----------------|---------|--------|
+| Original Research | 250 | 3500 | 8 | 5 |
+| Brief Report | 250 | 1500 | 4 | 2 |
+| Review Article | 250 | 5000 | 10 | 5 |
+| Pictorial Essay | 250 | 3000 | 20 | 3 |
+| Letter to Editor | none | 500 | 1 | 1 |
+| Technical Innovation | 250 | 2000 | 6 | 3 |
+
+Word counts exclude abstract, references, figure legends, and tables.
+
+## Abstract Format
+
+Structured with four headings:
+1. **Objective**
+2. **Materials and Methods**
+3. **Results**
+4. **Conclusion**
+
+Maximum 250 words. Must be self-contained.
+
+Note: AJR uses "Objective" (not "Purpose" as in RYAI).
+
+## Citation Style
+
+- Vancouver (numbered) style.
+- Numbered sequentially in order of first appearance in text.
+- Use superscript numbers in the manuscript body.
+- Format: Author(s). Title. Journal Abbreviation. Year;Vol(Issue):Pages.
+- List all authors if 6 or fewer; if 7+, list first 3 followed by "et al."
+
+## Keywords
+
+- 3-10 keywords required.
+- MeSH terms preferred.
+
+## Required Elements
+
+### For All Manuscripts
+
+- **Title page**: title, authors with degrees and affiliations, corresponding author with full contact, word count, number of figures/tables.
+- **"What Does This Article Add?"** box: Required for Original Research. Two to three bullet points (each 1 sentence) stating the specific new knowledge this study contributes beyond what was previously known.
+- **Key Points**: Required. Three bullet points summarizing the most important findings for the reader. These appear in the published article.
+  - Format: "Key Point 1: {finding}."
+- **Author Contributions**: Required.
+- **Conflict of Interest**: Required for all authors.
+- **Acknowledgments**: Including funding sources.
+
+### For AI/ML Studies
+- AI disclosure: describe AI tools used in research and/or writing.
+- Appropriate reporting checklist (STARD-AI, TRIPOD+AI, CLAIM) encouraged.
+- Code and data availability statements encouraged.
+
+## Reporting Guidelines
+
+AJR endorses standard reporting guidelines:
+
+| Study Type | Recommended Checklist |
+|------------|----------------------|
+| Diagnostic accuracy | STARD |
+| Prediction model | TRIPOD |
+| AI study | CLAIM |
+| RCT | CONSORT |
+| Systematic review | PRISMA |
+| Observational | STROBE |
+
+Completed checklists should be submitted as supplemental files.
+
+## Formatting Notes
+
+- Double-spaced throughout.
+- 12-point font.
+- Line numbers on every page.
+- Pages numbered consecutively.
+- Abbreviations: define at first use in abstract and body independently.
+- Tables: each on a separate page after references.
+- Figures: submitted as separate high-resolution files (TIFF or EPS preferred, minimum 300 dpi).
+- Figure legends: on a separate page after tables.
+
+## Section-Specific Requirements
+
+### Original Research Structure
+1. Title page
+2. Abstract (structured: Objective, Materials and Methods, Results, Conclusion)
+3. "What Does This Article Add?" box
+4. Key Points
+5. Introduction
+6. Materials and Methods
+7. Results
+8. Discussion
+9. References
+10. Tables
+11. Figure legends
+12. Figures (separate files)
+
+### "What Does This Article Add?" Box Format
+```
+WHAT DOES THIS ARTICLE ADD?
+
+- Previous studies have shown {known finding}.
+- This study demonstrates {new finding from this work}.
+- These results suggest {clinical implication or next step}.
+```
+
+### Key Points Format
+```
+KEY POINTS
+
+- Key Point 1: {most important finding, one sentence}.
+- Key Point 2: {second finding or methodological contribution}.
+- Key Point 3: {clinical implication}.
+```
+
+## Review Process
+
+- Single-blind peer review.
+- Typical first decision: 4-6 weeks.
+- Statistical review for accepted manuscripts.
+- Revisions typically due within 45 days.
+
+## Statistical Reporting
+
+AJR endorses the SAMPL (Statistical Analyses and Methods in the Published Literature) guidelines:
+- Report exact p-values (e.g., P = .034); never report only P < .05.
+- 95% CI for all primary outcomes and diagnostic performance metrics.
+- Diagnostic accuracy studies: sensitivity, specificity, AUC, PPV, NPV -- all with 95% CI.
+- For AI studies: calibration required in addition to discrimination; AUC alone is insufficient.
+- Effect sizes with units; name the specific statistical test used for each comparison.
+- Statistical review for accepted manuscripts.
+- Statistical software and version must be reported in Methods.
+
+## Special Considerations for Education-Research Manuscripts
+
+- Paper 3 (Educational Effectiveness) could fit AJR's scope if framed around radiology education and AI-assisted learning tools.
+- The "What Does This Article Add?" box and Key Points are mandatory and should be drafted early to clarify the paper's contribution.
+- AJR values clinical relevance; frame AI findings in terms of educational or clinical impact rather than pure technical performance.

package/skills/write-paper/references/journal_profiles/Abdominal_Radiology.md

@@ -0,0 +1,139 @@
+# Journal Profile: Abdominal Radiology
+
+## Journal Identity
+
+- **Full name**: Abdominal Radiology
+- **Abbreviation**: Abdom Radiol
+- **Publisher**: Springer Nature (Society of Abdominal Radiology, SAR)
+- **ISSN**: 2366-004X (print), 2366-0058 (online)
+- **Frequency**: Monthly (12 issues/year)
+- **Impact Factor**: ~3.1 (JCR 2023)
+- **Open Access**: Hybrid (Springer transformative agreements may cover OA)
+- **Acceptance rate**: ~30%
+- **Peer review**: Single-blind; typically 2 reviewers
+
+## Manuscript Types and Word Limits
+
+| Type | Body Word Limit | Abstract | References | Figures/Tables |
+|------|----------------|----------|------------|----------------|
+| Original Article | 3500 words | 250 words (structured) | 35 | 6 |
+| Review Article | 5000 words | 250 words | 60 | 10 |
+| Technical Innovation | 2000 words | 150 words (unstructured) | 15 | 4 |
+| Brief Report (incl. case reports) | 1500 words | 150 words | 10 | 4 |
+| Pictorial Essay | 3000 words | 200 words | 20 | 12 |
+| Letter to the Editor | 500 words | None | 5 | 1 |
+
+Word counts exclude abstract, references, tables, and figure legends.
+
+---
+
+## Abstract Requirements
+
+**Structured abstract for Original Articles, 250 words maximum:**
+
+```
+Purpose: [Study aim]
+Methods: [Design, population, imaging, analysis]
+Results: [Key findings with statistics]
+Conclusion: [Main conclusion — 1-2 sentences]
+```
+
+**Unstructured abstract for Technical Innovations and Brief Reports, 150 words.**
+
+---
+
+## Required Sections (Original Article)
+
+1. **Introduction** — clinical context, gap, study purpose (2-3 paragraphs)
+2. **Methods**
+   - Study Design: IRB, retrospective/prospective
+   - Patient Population: inclusion/exclusion criteria, time period
+   - Imaging Protocol: scanner, sequence parameters, contrast protocol
+   - Image Analysis: readers, blinding, measurement methods, structured reporting systems used
+   - Statistical Analysis: software, tests
+3. **Results** — demographics, imaging findings, performance metrics
+4. **Discussion** — interpretation, comparison with literature, clinical relevance, limitations
+5. **Conclusion**
+
+---
+
+## Statistical Reporting
+
+- Report exact p-values; use p < 0.001 below that threshold.
+- 95% CI for primary outcomes.
+- For diagnostic accuracy: sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, AUC with 95% CI.
+- Inter-reader agreement: ICC or kappa with model specification.
+- For structured reporting studies (LI-RADS, PI-RADS): report per-category distribution and diagnostic performance per category.
+- Multiple comparisons: correction method stated.
+- Statistical software and version must be identified.
+
+---
+
+## Abdominal Imaging-Specific Requirements
+
+### Structured Reporting Systems
+
+Abdominal Radiology is a key venue for studies using standardized reporting:
+- **LI-RADS** (Liver Imaging Reporting and Data System)
+- **PI-RADS** (Prostate Imaging Reporting and Data System)
+- **Bosniak** classification (renal cysts)
+- **O-RADS** (Ovarian-Adnexal Reporting and Data System)
+- **TI-RADS** (Thyroid Imaging Reporting and Data System — when thyroid US)
+
+When using these systems, report the version used and per-category results.
+
+### Imaging Protocol
+
+Report for each modality:
+- CT: scanner, kVp, mAs, slice thickness, reconstruction kernel, contrast protocol (volume, rate, timing)
+- MRI: field strength, coil, sequences with parameters, contrast agent and dose
+- US: transducer frequency, CEUS contrast agent if applicable
+
+---
+
+## Figures
+
+- **Maximum 6 figures/tables** for original articles; **12 for Pictorial Essays**
+- **Resolution**: 300 DPI minimum
+- **Format**: TIFF, EPS, JPEG
+- **Color**: Free online
+- **Annotations**: arrows with legend, window/level appropriate for lesion visibility
+
+---
+
+## Common Rejection Reasons
+
+1. **Topic outside abdominal/pelvic scope** — chest, MSK, and neuro papers redirected
+2. **Structured reporting studies without per-category analysis** — reporting LI-RADS categories without stratified performance is PARTIAL
+3. **Missing imaging protocol detail** — essential for reproducibility in abdominal imaging
+4. **Small sample without novel technique** — needs sufficient cases per diagnostic category
+5. **Overlap with themed issue** — check SAR disease-focused panels schedule to align or avoid
+
+---
+
+## Cover Letter
+
+Should include:
+- Relevance to abdominal/pelvic radiology
+- Key finding summary
+- Alignment with SAR focus areas (if applicable)
+- Statement of originality
+
+---
+
+## Author Guidelines URL
+
+https://www.springer.com/journal/261/submission-guidelines
+
+---
+
+## Positioning
+
+Abdominal Radiology is appropriate when:
+- Abdominal/pelvic imaging study (CT, MRI, US) with clinical relevance
+- LI-RADS, PI-RADS, or other structured reporting validation study
+- AI applied to abdominal imaging with diagnostic performance evaluation
+- Contrast-enhanced imaging technique comparison (hepatobiliary, CEUS)
+- Pictorial essay on abdominal pathology
+
+Not appropriate for: non-abdominal imaging, pure methodology without abdominal imaging data, interventional procedures (use CVIR/JVIR).