ReviewCritical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences2025
Rigorous validation of machine learning in laboratory medicine: guidance toward quality improvement.
Review in Critical reviews in clinical laboratory sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Ethical guidelines for deploying artificial intelligence applications in the pathology field: Lessons learned from a prospective framework in a large tertiary care academic medical center.Journal of pathology informatics · 2026Article
- Performance Evaluation of GPT-5, Grok 4, and DeepSeek R1 in Interpreting Complete Blood Count Reports for Hematologic Diseases: Retrospective Comparative Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- AI Based Predictive Modelling for Internal Quality Control: A Machine Learning Approach Using Altair RapidMiner.EJIFCC · 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
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The application of artificial intelligence (AI) in laboratory medicine will revolutionize predictive modeling using clinical laboratory information. Machine learning (ML), a sub-discipline of AI, involves fitting algorithms to datasets and is broadly used for data-driven predictive modeling in various disciplines. The majority of ML studies reported in systematic reviews lack key aspects of quality assurance. In clinical laboratory medicine, it is important to consider how differences in analytical methodologies, assay calibration, harmonization, pre-analytical errors, interferences, and physiological factors affecting measured analyte concentrations may also affect the downstream robustness and reliability of ML models. In this article, we address the need for quality improvement and proper validation of ML classification models, with the goal of bringing attention to key concepts pertinent to researchers, manuscript reviewers, and journal editors within the field of pathology and laboratory medicine. Several existing predictive modeling guidelines and recommendations can be readily adapted to the development of ML models in laboratory medicine. We summarize a basic overview of ML and key points from current guidelines including advantages and pitfalls of applied ML. In addition, we draw a parallel between validation of clinical assays and ML models in the context of current regulatory frameworks. The importance of classification performance metrics, model explainability, and data quality along with recommendations for strengthening journal submission requirements are also discussed. Although the focus of this article is on the application of ML in laboratory medicine, many of these concepts extend into other areas of medicine and biomedical science as well.
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.