ArticleJMIR medical informatics2024
Evaluation of AI-Driven LabTest Checker for Diagnostic Accuracy and Safety: Prospective Cohort Study.
Article in JMIR medical informatics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- ChatGPT in precision medicine.APL bioengineering · 2026Review
- Review
- Comparative Analysis of Generative Artificial Intelligence Systems in Solving Clinical Pharmacy Problems: Mixed Methods Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
- Clinician Attitudes and Perceptions of Point-of-Care Information Resources and Their Integration Into Electronic Health Records: Qualitative Interview Study.JMIR medical informatics · 2025Article
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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: In recent years, the implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in health care is progressively transforming medical fields, with the use of clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) as a notable application. Laboratory tests are vital for accurate diagnoses, but their increasing reliance presents challenges. The need for effective strategies for managing laboratory test interpretation is evident from the millions of monthly searches on test results' significance. As the potential role of CDSSs in laboratory diagnostics gains significance, however, more research is needed to explore this area. Objective: The primary objective of our study was to assess the accuracy and safety of LabTest Checker (LTC), a CDSS designed to support medical diagnoses by analyzing both laboratory test results and patients' medical histories. Methods: This cohort study embraced a prospective data collection approach. A total of 101 patients aged ≥18 years, in stable condition, and requiring comprehensive diagnosis were enrolled. A panel of blood laboratory tests was conducted for each participant. Participants used LTC for test result interpretation. The accuracy and safety of the tool were assessed by comparing AI-generated suggestions to experienced doctor (consultant) recommendations, which are considered the gold standard. Results: The system achieved a 74.3% accuracy and 100% sensitivity for emergency safety and 92.3% sensitivity for urgent cases. It potentially reduced unnecessary medical visits by 41.6% (42/101) and achieved an 82.9% accuracy in identifying underlying pathologies. Conclusions: This study underscores the transformative potential of AI-based CDSSs in laboratory diagnostics, contributing to enhanced patient care, efficient health care systems, and improved medical outcomes. LTC's performance evaluation highlights the advancements in AI's role in laboratory medicine.
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.