Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38146579›Full record

ReviewCureus2023

Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Microbial Diagnosis.

Yogendra P Shelke, Ankit K Badge, Nandkishor J Bankar

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Cureus, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing 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

17 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. [Advances in the Application of Artificial Intelligence in Clinical Microbiological Testing].Sichuan da xue xue bao. Yi xue ban = Journal of Sichuan University. Medical science edition · 2026
    Review
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Artificial intelligence in clinical microbiology: results from the first National survey by the Italian association of clinical microbiologists.European journal of clinical microbiology & infectious diseases : official publication of the European Society of Clinical Microbiology · 2026
    Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Review
  14. Artificial Intelligence in Biomedical Sciences: A Scoping Review.British journal of biomedical science · 2025
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
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

3 authors.

Yogendra P ShelkeMicrobiology, Bhaktshreshtha Kamalakarpant Laxmanrao Walawalkar Rural Medical College, Ratnagiri, IND.
Ankit K BadgeMicrobiology, Datta Meghe Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research (Deemed to Be University), Wardha, IND.
Nandkishor J BankarMicrobiology, Jawaharlal Nehru Medical College, Datta Meghe Institute of Higher Education and Research (Deemed to Be University), Wardha, IND.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The diagnosis is an important factor in healthcare care, and it is essential to identify microorganisms that cause infections and diseases. The application of artificial intelligence (AI) systems can improve disease management, drug development, antibiotic resistance prediction, and epidemiological monitoring in the field of microbial diagnosis. AI systems can quickly and accurately detect infections, including new and drug-resistant strains, and enable early detection of antibiotic resistance and improved diagnostic techniques. The application of AI in bacterial diagnosis focuses on the speed, precision, and identification of pathogens and the ability to predict antibiotic resistance.

Indexed as

antibiotic resistance predictionartificial intelligence in healthcareepidemiological monitoringmicrobial diagnosispathogen identification

Identifiers

PMID38146579
PMCPMC10749263

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.