Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37252943›Full record

ArticleClinical chemistry2023

Machine Learning in Laboratory Medicine: Recommendations of the IFCC Working Group.

Stephen R Master, Tony C Badrick, Andreas Bietenbeck, Shannon Haymond

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Stephen R MasterDepartment of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, Children's Hospital of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-6808-631X
Tony C BadrickRoyal College of Pathologists of Australasia Quality Assurance Programs, Sydney, Australia.
Andreas BietenbeckMVZ Ärztliche Laboratorien München-Land GmbH, Poing, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-1228-0770
Shannon HaymondAnn & Robert H. Lurie Children's Hospital of Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Clinical Laboratory ServicesMedicineChemistry, ClinicalHumansLaboratoriesReproducibility of Results

Identifiers

PMID37252943
PMCPMC10320011

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.