ArticleClinical chemistry2023
Machine Learning in Laboratory Medicine: Recommendations of the IFCC Working Group.
Article in Clinical chemistry, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Construction and validation of a machine learning model for predicting urine culture positivity in children with suspected urinary tract infections.Annals of medicine · 2026Article
- From Detection to Decision Support: Advancing AI-Assisted Serum Quality Assessment.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2026Article
- Establishing Thyroid Reference Intervals Through Hierarchical Cluster Analysis: A Comparative Evaluation of Limit Estimation and Partitioning Methods.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Article
- Letter to the editor "The NPAR index in breast cancer: diagnostic promise versus validation reality".International journal of surgery (London, England) · 2026Article
- A machine learning model for predicting oligoclonal band positivity using routine cerebrospinal fluid and serum biochemical markers.American journal of clinical pathology · 2025Article
- Tribulations, Triumphs, and Governance: Shaping the Future of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare.EJIFCC · 2025Article
- Prediction of Lung Cancer Metastasis Using Machine Learning Models Based on Clinical Laboratory Data.Cancer reports (Hoboken, N.J.) · 2025Article
- Rigorous validation of machine learning in laboratory medicine: guidance toward quality improvement.Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences · 2025Review
- Cost-effective shallow genome-wide sequencing for profiling plasma cfDNA signatures to enhance lung cancer detection.Future oncology (London, England) · 2025Article
- Advancing Laboratory Medicine Practice With Machine Learning: Swift yet Exact.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- Machine Learning for Patient-Based Real-Time Quality Control (PBRTQC), Analytical and Preanalytical Error Detection in Clinical Laboratory.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
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
backgroundMachine learning (ML) has been applied to an increasing number of predictive problems in laboratory medicine, and published work to date suggests that it has tremendous potential for clinical applications. However, a number of groups have noted the potential pitfalls associated with this work, particularly if certain details of the development and validation pipelines are not carefully controlled.
methodsTo address these pitfalls and other specific challenges when applying machine learning in a laboratory medicine setting, a working group of the International Federation for Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine was convened to provide a guidance document for this domain.
resultsThis manuscript represents consensus recommendations for best practices from that committee, with the goal of improving the quality of developed and published ML models designed for use in clinical laboratories.
conclusionsThe committee believes that implementation of these best practices will improve the quality and reproducibility of machine learning utilized in laboratory medicine. SUMMARY: We have provided our consensus assessment of a number of important practices that are required to ensure that valid, reproducible machine learning (ML) models can be applied to address operational and diagnostic questions in the clinical laboratory. These practices span all phases of model development, from problem formulation through predictive implementation. Although it is not possible to exhaustively discuss every potential pitfall in ML workflows, we believe that our current guidelines capture best practices for avoiding the most common and potentially dangerous errors in this important emerging field.
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.