Skip to main content

Documentation Index

Fetch the complete documentation index at: https://playbook.pharmatools.ai/llms.txt

Use this file to discover all available pages before exploring further.

Each snippet below is a starting point, not a finished line. Edit the bracketed variables — tool name, version, scope, reviewer name — to match your project before submitting. The wording aligns with current ICMJE-style expectations and most major journal policies; for the principle behind these templates, see Declaring AI Use.

​
How to use this page

  • Pick the scenario that matches your deliverable.
  • Edit every bracketed variable. A disclosure with [Author X] left in is a disclosure that doesn’t survive contact with reality.
  • Always name a human. A disclosure without a named, accountable reviewer is not a disclosure — it is a description.
  • Match the venue. Default snippets here align with current ICMJE-style standards. Always check the journal’s, regulator’s, or sponsor’s specific policy at submission.
  • When in doubt, declare more, not less. Underdisclosure is the higher-risk position.

​
Manuscript — AI drafted a section

Use in the Methods or Acknowledgments section, per the journal’s policy.
[Tool name and version, e.g., Claude Opus 4.7] was used to generate an initial draft of the [section, e.g., Discussion]. The output was reviewed, edited, and verified against the cited sources by [Author name(s)], who take full responsibility for the final content. The tool was not used to perform analyses, generate data, or select references.

​
Manuscript — AI used for editing or proofing only

Use in the Acknowledgments section.
[Tool name and version, e.g., Claude Sonnet 4.6] was used to assist with [editing for clarity / proofreading / language polishing] of human-written drafts. No content was generated by the tool. [Author name(s)] reviewed all suggestions and take full responsibility for the final manuscript.

​
Manuscript — AI used for translation

Use in the Methods section.
The manuscript was originally drafted in [source language] and translated into [target language] using [Tool name and version]. The translation was reviewed and corrected by [Author name(s) or qualified translator], who confirm the translated content accurately reflects the original.

​
Manuscript — AI used for reference verification

Use in the Methods or Acknowledgments section.
Cited references were verified against their source documents using [Tool name and version, e.g., RefCheckr]. All claims and numerical data were cross-checked against the cited sources. [Author name(s)] reviewed and confirmed the verification output and take responsibility for the final reference set.

​
Manuscript — AI used for figure or visual abstract generation

Use in the figure caption and the Methods section. Many journals restrict AI for scientific figures — check the journal’s specific policy before use.
The [visual abstract / concept figure / illustration] was generated using [Tool name and version, e.g., Nano Banana 2] from a prompt describing [content]. The image was reviewed for accuracy by [Author name(s)] and is intended as a conceptual illustration, not as primary scientific data.

​
Conference abstract or poster

Use in the abstract footer or poster Acknowledgments.
[Tool name and version] was used to assist with [drafting / editing / translation] of this [abstract / poster]. The output was reviewed by [Author name(s)], who take responsibility for the content.

​
Plain language summary

Use in the PLS document, typically in a footer or methods note.
This plain language summary was developed with assistance from [Tool name and version, e.g., Patiently AI] to translate clinical findings into accessible language. The summary was reviewed for accuracy and clarity by [Author name(s) / patient advisor / medical reviewer], who confirm the content reflects the source [paper / trial results].

​
Regulatory document (CSR section, IB, Module 2 summary, etc.)

Use per the relevant agency guidance and your sponsor’s SOP. Always route through regulatory affairs review before finalising.
[Tool name and version] was used to assist with drafting [section / module]. The output was reviewed against [source data / SAP / protocol] by [Author name(s)] and approved by [regulatory reviewer / responsible signatory] in accordance with [sponsor SOP reference]. Tool use is documented in [project audit log location].

​
Promotional or MLR-bound material

Use per the applicable code (ABPI, IFPMA, etc.) and your client’s SOP. The disclosure may be internal-only depending on the deliverable.
AI tool [Tool name and version] was used to assist with [drafting / editing / claim verification] of this material. All claims have been verified against approved references and the approved messaging framework. The content was reviewed for code compliance by [reviewer name / role] before submission to MLR.

​
Internal client deliverable (briefing doc, internal report, leave-piece copy)

Use in the document footer or AI-use log per client SOP.
Drafted with assistance from [Tool name and version], used for [drafting / summarisation / editing]. Reviewed and finalised by [Author name]. AI use logged per [project SOP / agency SOP reference].

​
Notes on adapting these snippets

  • Be specific about scope. “AI was used” is not specific enough. Name what the tool did and what it didn’t do.
  • Document contemporaneously. Build the disclosure as you write, not at submission. The audit-trail expectations in Review and Accountability feed directly into the disclosure.
  • Specify the version where it matters. “Claude” alone is less defensible than “Claude Opus 4.7” if questions arise about a particular output six months later.
  • Don’t conflate categories. If AI was used for both editing and translation, declare both explicitly. Don’t roll them into a vague “language assistance” line.
  • Mirror the journal’s preferred format. Some journals want a dedicated AI-use statement; others embed it in the Methods. Check before submission.
Last reviewed: 4 May 2026 · 5 min read