Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38186931›Full record

ArticleHealth science reports2024

Impacts of the advancement in artificial intelligence on laboratory medicine in low- and middle-income countries: Challenges and recommendations-A literature review.

Malik Olatunde Oduoye, Eeshal Fatima, Muhammad Ali Muzammil, Tirth Dave, Hamza Irfan, F N U Fariha, Andrew Marbell, Samuel Chinonso Ubechu, Godfred Yawson Scott, Emmanuel Ebuka Elebesunu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health science reports, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 27 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
27citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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

27 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Proceedings from the CIHBMC proceedings · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. 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

10 authors.

Malik Olatunde OduoyeMedical Research Circle Bukavu Democratic Republic of Congo.ORCID 0000-0001-9635-9891
Eeshal FatimaServices Institute of Medical Sciences Lahore Pakistan.ORCID 0009-0004-7103-9364
Muhammad Ali MuzammilDow University of Health Sciences Karachi Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0001-9446-9093
Tirth DaveBukovinian State Medical University Chernivtsi Ukraine.ORCID 0000-0001-7935-7333
Hamza IrfanShaikh Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Medical and Dental College Lahore Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-0967-7523
F N U FarihaDow University of Health Sciences Karachi Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-5903-7540
Andrew MarbellMédecins Sans Frontieres Maiduguri Nigeria.ORCID 0009-0008-6683-2906
Samuel Chinonso UbechuSchool of Public Health Yale University New Haven Connecticut USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5411-5917
Godfred Yawson ScottDepartment of Medical Diagnostics Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology Kumasi Ghana.ORCID 0000-0001-7531-4213
Emmanuel Ebuka ElebesunuUniversity of Nigeria Enugu Nigeria.ORCID 0000-0001-5414-4147

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background and Aims: Artificial intelligence (AI) has emerged as a transformative force in laboratory medicine, promising significant advancements in healthcare delivery. This study explores the potential impact of AI on diagnostics and patient management within the context of laboratory medicine, with a particular focus on low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Methods: In writing this article, we conducted a thorough search of databases such as PubMed, ResearchGate, Web of Science, Scopus, and Google Scholar within 20 years. The study examines AI's capabilities, including learning, reasoning, and decision-making, mirroring human cognitive processes. It highlights AI's adeptness at processing vast data sets, identifying patterns, and expediting the extraction of actionable insights, particularly in medical imaging interpretation and laboratory test data analysis. The research emphasizes the potential benefits of AI in early disease detection, therapeutic interventions, and personalized treatment strategies. Results: In the realm of laboratory medicine, AI demonstrates remarkable precision in interpreting medical images such as radiography, computed tomography, and magnetic resonance imaging. Its predictive analytical capabilities extend to forecasting patient trajectories and informing personalized treatment strategies using comprehensive data sets comprising clinical outcomes, patient records, and laboratory results. The study underscores the significance of AI in addressing healthcare challenges, especially in resource-constrained LMICs. Conclusion: While acknowledging the profound impact of AI on laboratory medicine in LMICs, the study recognizes challenges such as inadequate data availability, digital infrastructure deficiencies, and ethical considerations. Successful implementation necessitates substantial investments in digital infrastructure, the establishment of data-sharing networks, and the formulation of regulatory frameworks. The study concludes that collaborative efforts among stakeholders, including international organizations, governments, and nongovernmental entities, are crucial for overcoming obstacles and responsibly integrating AI into laboratory medicine in LMICs. A comprehensive, coordinated approach is essential for realizing AI's transformative potential and advancing health care in LMICs.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencelaboratory medicinelow‐ and middle‐income countries

Identifiers

PMID38186931
PMCPMC10766873

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.