ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2022
Energy Efficiency of Inference Algorithms for Clinical Laboratory Data Sets: Green Artificial Intelligence Study.
Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 49 citations in OpenAlex.
- Accurately IdentifyingDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Discrepant treponemal test results: Identification of associated risk factors through machine learning technology in 18-year electronic medical records and national claims data.Biomedical journal · 2026Article
- Greening public health: embedding environmental sustainability in research and practice.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Exploring the gut microbiota associated with peripheral nerve invasion in colorectal cancer patients and constructing predictive models.BMC microbiology · 2025Article
- Machine learning model to predict sepsis in ICU patients with intracerebral hemorrhage.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Integrating Artificial Intelligence for Advancing Multiple-Cancer Early Detection via Serum Biomarkers: A Narrative Review.Cancers · 2024Review
- Identification of colorectal cancer progression-associated intestinal microbiome and predictive signature construction.Journal of translational medicine · 2023Article
- Identification of intestinal microbiome associated with lymph-vascular invasion in colorectal cancer patients and predictive label construction.Frontiers in cellular and infection microbiology · 2023Article
- Integration of feature vectors from raw laboratory, medication and procedure names improves the precision and recall of models to predict postoperative mortality and acute kidney injury.Scientific reports · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe use of artificial intelligence (AI) in the medical domain has attracted considerable research interest. Inference applications in the medical domain require energy-efficient AI models. In contrast to other types of data in visual AI, data from medical laboratories usually comprise features with strong signals. Numerous energy optimization techniques have been developed to relieve the burden on the hardware required to deploy a complex learning model. However, the energy efficiency levels of different AI models used for medical applications have not been studied.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to explore and compare the energy efficiency levels of commonly used machine learning algorithms-logistic regression (LR), k-nearest neighbor, support vector machine, random forest (RF), and extreme gradient boosting (XGB) algorithms, as well as four different variants of neural network (NN) algorithms-when applied to clinical laboratory datasets.
methodsWe applied the aforementioned algorithms to two distinct clinical laboratory data sets: a mass spectrometry data set regarding Staphylococcus aureus for predicting methicillin resistance (3338 cases; 268 features) and a urinalysis data set for predicting Trichomonas vaginalis infection (839,164 cases; 9 features). We compared the performance of the nine inference algorithms in terms of accuracy, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC), time consumption, and power consumption. The time and power consumption levels were determined using performance counter data from Intel Power Gadget 3.5.
resultsThe experimental results indicated that the RF and XGB algorithms achieved the two highest AUROC values for both data sets (84.7% and 83.9%, respectively, for the mass spectrometry data set; 91.1% and 91.4%, respectively, for the urinalysis data set). The XGB and LR algorithms exhibited the shortest inference time for both data sets (0.47 milliseconds for both in the mass spectrometry data set; 0.39 and 0.47 milliseconds, respectively, for the urinalysis data set). Compared with the RF algorithm, the XGB and LR algorithms exhibited a 45% and 53%-60% reduction in inference time for the mass spectrometry and urinalysis data sets, respectively. In terms of energy efficiency, the XGB algorithm exhibited the lowest power consumption for the mass spectrometry data set (9.42 Watts) and the LR algorithm exhibited the lowest power consumption for the urinalysis data set (9.98 Watts). Compared with a five-hidden-layer NN, the XGB and LR algorithms achieved 16%-24% and 9%-13% lower power consumption levels for the mass spectrometry and urinalysis data sets, respectively. In all experiments, the XGB algorithm exhibited the best performance in terms of accuracy, run time, and energy efficiency.
conclusionsThe XGB algorithm achieved balanced performance levels in terms of AUROC, run time, and energy efficiency for the two clinical laboratory data sets. Considering the energy constraints in real-world scenarios, the XGB algorithm is ideal for medical AI applications.
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.