ReviewSaudi medical journal2020
The emergence of new trends in clinical laboratory diagnosis.
Review in Saudi medical journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Clinlabomics: leveraging clinical laboratory data by data mining strategies.BMC bioinformatics · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Diagnostic processes typically rely on traditional and laborious methods, that are prone to human error, resulting in frequent misdiagnosis of diseases. Computational approaches are being increasingly used for more precise diagnosis of the clinical pathology, diagnosis of genetic and microbial diseases, and analysis of clinical chemistry data. These approaches are progressively used for improving the reliability of testing, resulting in reduced diagnostic errors. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based computational approaches mostly rely on training sets obtained from patient data stored in clinical databases. However, the use of AI is associated with several ethical issues, including patient privacy and data ownership. The capacity of AI-based mathematical models to interpret complex clinical data frequently leads to data bias and reporting of erroneous results based on patient data. In order to improve the reliability of computational approaches in clinical diagnostics, strategies to reduce data bias and analyzing real-life patient data need to be further refined.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.