ArticleJMIR medical informatics2020
Development of an Artificial Intelligence-Based Automated Recommendation System for Clinical Laboratory Tests: Retrospective Analysis of the National Health Insurance Database.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
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
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Pilot Report for Intracranial Hemorrhage Detection with Deep Learning Implanted Head Computed Tomography Images at Emergency Department.Journal of medical systems · 2022Trial
- Artificial intelligence applications in health insurances: a scoping review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2025Review
- Integrating ensemble and machine learning models for early prediction of pneumonia mortality using laboratory tests.Heliyon · 2024Article
- The application of artificial intelligence in health financing: a scoping review.Cost effectiveness and resource allocation : C/E · 2023Article
- Artificial Intelligence in Dementia: A Bibliometric Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Diagnostic Mycology Laboratories Should Have a Central Role for the Management of Fungal Disease.Journal of fungi (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Applications of machine learning in routine laboratory medicine: Current state and future directions.Clinical biochemistry · 2022Review
- A Data-Driven Algorithm to Recommend Initial Clinical Workup for Outpatient Specialty Referral: Algorithm Development and Validation Using Electronic Health Record Data and Expert Surveys.JMIR medical informatics · 2022Article
- Rise of the Machines: The Inevitable Evolution of Medicine and Medical Laboratories Intertwining with Artificial Intelligence-A Narrative Review.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
- Laboratory Demand Management Strategies-An Overview.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLaboratory tests are considered an essential part of patient safety as patients' screening, diagnosis, and follow-up are solely based on laboratory tests. Diagnosis of patients could be wrong, missed, or delayed if laboratory tests are performed erroneously. However, recognizing the value of correct laboratory test ordering remains underestimated by policymakers and clinicians. Nowadays, artificial intelligence methods such as machine learning and deep learning (DL) have been extensively used as powerful tools for pattern recognition in large data sets. Therefore, developing an automated laboratory test recommendation tool using available data from electronic health records (EHRs) could support current clinical practice.
objectiveThe objective of this study was to develop an artificial intelligence-based automated model that can provide laboratory tests recommendation based on simple variables available in EHRs.
methodsA retrospective analysis of the National Health Insurance database between January 1, 2013, and December 31, 2013, was performed. We reviewed the record of all patients who visited the cardiology department at least once and were prescribed laboratory tests. The data set was split into training and testing sets (80:20) to develop the DL model. In the internal validation, 25% of data were randomly selected from the training set to evaluate the performance of this model.
resultsWe used the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, precision, recall, and hamming loss as comparative measures. A total of 129,938 prescriptions were used in our model. The DL-based automated recommendation system for laboratory tests achieved a significantly higher area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROCmacro and AUROCmicro of 0.76 and 0.87, respectively). Using a low cutoff, the model identified appropriate laboratory tests with 99% sensitivity.
conclusionsThe developed artificial intelligence model based on DL exhibited good discriminative capability for predicting laboratory tests using routinely collected EHR data. Utilization of DL approaches can facilitate optimal laboratory test selection for patients, which may in turn improve patient safety. However, future study is recommended to assess the cost-effectiveness for implementing this model in real-world clinical settings.
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.