Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41098210›Full record

ArticleEJIFCC2025

Conceptualization of the Use of Artificial Intelligence by Clinical or Research Laboratory Professionals: Challenges for Its Implementation in Mexico.

Jorge Manuel Sánchez-González, María Cristina Morán-Moguel, Antonio Eugenio Rivera-Cisneros, Éctor Jaime Ramírez-Barba, Rosa-Isabel Sierra-Amor, Jorge Horacio Portillo-Gallo, Martín López-Rodríguez

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in EJIFCC, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

7 authors.

Jorge Manuel Sánchez-GonzálezMexican Federation of Clinical Pathology, AC (FEMPAC), Latin American Association of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine (ALAPAC/ML), National Institute of Learning, Skills and Research in Sciences, SC (INAHIC), Zapopan, Jalisco, Mexico.
María Cristina Morán-MoguelDepartment of Philosophical, Methodological, and Instrumental Disciplines. University Center for Health Sciences. University of Guadalajara. Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.
Antonio Eugenio Rivera-CisnerosUniversity of Football and Sports Sciences, Pachuca, Hidalgo, Mexico.
Éctor Jaime Ramírez-BarbaUniversity of Guanajuato. Federal Deputy and Secretary of the Health Commission of the Congress of the Union of Mexico.
Rosa-Isabel Sierra-AmorIFCC Nominations Committee. Mexican Council for Certification in Pharmaceutical Chemistry, COMECEF. Laboratory Accreditation Management WG, COLABIOCLI, LAWG Global Lab Quality Initiative, Association for Diagnosis & Laboratory Medicine (former AACC).
Jorge Horacio Portillo-GalloLatin American Association of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, AC, Chihuahua, Chihuahua, Mexico.
Martín López-RodríguezLatin American Association of Clinical Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, AC, Guadalajara, Jalisco, Mexico.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing the healthcare sector via advanced tools to improve diagnostic accuracy, operational efficiency, and decision-making. In clinical laboratories (CLs), the integration of AI automates the processing and analysis of large volumes of data, enables the early detection of diseases, and supports personalized medicine. Determining how personnel involved in the use of AI in CLs conceptualize AI can enable the identification of challenges and difficulties impeding its implementation. Methods: An observational, prospective, cross-sectional, and comparative study was performed using an online survey for CL or research professionals in public or private CL throughout Mexico. The survey had 36 questions aimed at obtaining sociodemographic information and conceptualization of different aspects of AI, namely, familiarity, use, concerns, limitations, and useful applications. Results: Overall, 125 men and 237 women (aged 19-81 years) participated in this study. The survey results showed that CL or research professionals were familiar with AI in general. They preferred to use AI to reduce pre-analytical errors (67%) and save time (65%). Lack of knowledge and training (74%) and fear of being replaced (66%) were identified as major AI-related concerns; the ethical aspects of AI were also a main concern. Only 4.7% of respondents had received formal AI training, but 84.8% were willing to take AI courses. Conclusion: The findings highlight opportunities and priorities to promote AI-related public and educational policies, regulate AI adoption in CLs, develop optimal training strategies, as well as foster ethics, avoiding the exclusion of particular social groups.

Indexed as

AI EthicsArtificial IntelligenceClinical LaboratoryConceptualizationLaboratory technologiesMexico

Identifiers

PMID41098210
PMCPMC12519616

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.