ReviewVeterinary clinical pathology2025
Harnessing artificial intelligence for enhanced veterinary diagnostics: A look to quality assurance, Part II External validation.
Review in Veterinary clinical pathology, 2025. 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.
- Artificial Intelligence for the Diagnosis of Respiratory Diseases in Dogs and Cats: A Systematic Review.Veterinary sciences · 2026Review
- The influence, promise, and potential perils of artificial intelligence in veterinary medicine: a call for improved awareness and literacy.Journal of veterinary internal medicine · 2026Article
- Harnessing artificial intelligence for enhanced veterinary diagnostics: A look to quality assurance, Part I Model development.Veterinary clinical pathology · 2025Review
- Harnessing artificial intelligence for enhanced veterinary diagnostics: A look to quality assurance, Part II External validation.Veterinary clinical pathology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI) is emerging as a valuable diagnostic tool in veterinary medicine, offering affordable and accessible tests that can match or even exceed the performance of medical professionals in similar tasks. Despite the promising outcomes of using AI systems (AIS) as highly accurate diagnostic tools, the field of quality assurance in AIS is still in its early stages. Our Part I manuscript focused on the development and technical validation of an AIS. In Part II, we explore the next step in development: external validation (i.e., in silico testing). This phase is a critical quality assurance component for any AIS intended for medical use, ensuring that high-quality diagnostics remain the standard in veterinary medicine. The quality assurance process for evaluating an AIS involves rigorous: (1) investigation of sources of bias, (2) application of calibration methods and prediction of uncertainty, (3) implementation of safety monitoring systems, and (4) assessment of repeatability and robustness. Testing with unseen data is an essential part of in silico testing, as it ensures the accuracy and precision of the AIS output.
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.