> ## 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.

# Disclosure Language Template

> Ready-to-use AI disclosure wording for manuscripts, posters, regulatory documents, and other medical writing deliverables.

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](/principles/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](/principles/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.

***

## Related

* [Declaring AI Use](/principles/declaring-ai-use) — the principle behind these templates
* [AI in Peer Review](/principles/ai-in-peer-review) — what journals run on submissions before peer review
* [Review and Accountability](/principles/review-and-accountability) — the audit trail that supports disclosure
* [AI Regulation in Pharma](/principles/ai-regulation) — regulatory expectations that overlap with journal disclosure

***

*Last reviewed: 4 May 2026 · 5 min read*