ArticleDiscoveries (Craiova, Romania)
Empowering healthcare professionals with no-code artificial intelligence platforms for model development, a practical demonstration for pathology.
Article in Discoveries (Craiova, Romania). The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Building Clinical Artificial Intelligence at the PICU Bedside: Recognizing the Clinician-Builder.Critical care explorations · 2026Article
- Simulator development using natural language: clinician-led innovation through artificial intelligence.Advances in simulation (London, England) · 2026Review
- Developing a Large Language Model-Based Feedback System for Case Report Writing in Rehabilitation Education: Tutorial.JMIR medical education · 2026Article
- AI-Based Prediction of Gene Expression in Single-Cell and Multiscale Genomics and Transcriptomics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- AI-assisted multimodal data integration for precision oncology.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning based applications are thought to impact the practice of healthcare by transforming diagnostic patient management approaches. However, domain knowledge, clinical and coding expertise are likely the biggest challenge and a substantial barrier in developing practical AI models. Most informatics and AI experts are not familiar with the nuances in medicine, and most doctors are not efficient coders. To address this barrier, a few "no-code" AI platforms are emerging. They enable medical professionals to create AI models without coding skills. This study examines Teachable Machine™, a no-code AI platform, to classify white blood cells into the five common WBC types. Training data from publicly available datasets were used, and model accuracy was improved by fine-tuning hyperparameters. Sensitivity, precision, and F1 score calculations evaluated model performance, and independent datasets were employed for testing. Several factors that influence the performance of the model were tested. The model achieved 97% accuracy in classifying white blood cells, with high sensitivity and precision. Independent validation supported its potential for further development. This is the first study that demonstrates the value of a free no-code algorithm based AI platforms use in hematopathology using authentic datasets for training. It opens an opportunity for the healthcare professionals to get hands-on experience with AI and to create practical AI models without coding expertise.
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.