Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39344148›Full record

ReviewAnnals of laboratory medicine2025

Toward High-Quality Real-World Laboratory Data in the Era of Healthcare Big Data.

Sollip Kim, Won-Ki Min

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Annals of laboratory medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Guideline
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  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

2 authors.

Sollip KimDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0474-5897
Won-Ki MinDepartment of Laboratory Medicine, Asan Medical Center, University of Ulsan College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5158-2130

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

With Industry 4.0, big data and artificial intelligence have become paramount in the field of medicine. Electronic health records, the primary source of medical data, are not collected for research purposes but represent real-world data; therefore, they have various constraints. Although structured, laboratory data often contain unstandardized terminology or missing information. The major challenge lies in the lack of standardization of test results in terms of metrology, which complicates comparisons across laboratories. In this review, we delve into the essential components necessary for integrating real-world laboratory data into high-quality big data, including the standardization of terminology, data formats, equations, and the harmonization and standardization of results. Moreover, we address the transference and adjustment of laboratory results, along with the certification for quality of laboratory data. By discussing these critical aspects, we seek to shed light on the challenges and opportunities inherent to utilizing real-world laboratory data within the framework of healthcare big data and artificial intelligence.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceBig DataElectronic Health RecordsHumansLaboratories, ClinicalArtificial intelligenceBig dataData qualityHarmonizationLaboratory medicineReal-world dataStandardization

Identifiers

PMID39344148
PMCPMC11609703

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.