ReviewClinical chemistry and laboratory medicine2026
From automation to agentic artificial intelligence in laboratory medicine: an opinion of the IFCC Division on Emerging Technologies.
Review in Clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine, 2026. 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.
- Advancements in CRISPR/Cas Technologies for Sensitive Cancer Detection: Mechanisms, Platforms, and Clinical Translation Roadmap.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence and Genomic Data Analysis: New Frontiers in Precision Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- Artificial Intelligence-Guided Artificial Nutrition in Critical Illness: Integrating Indirect Calorimetry and BIVA for Metabolic Precision.Nutrients · 2026Review
- Clinical Artificial Intelligence Agents in Nephrology: From Prediction to Action Through Workflow-Native Intelligence-A Roadmap for Workflow-Integrated Care.Journal of clinical medicine · 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
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Agentic artificial intelligence (AI) systems are distinguished by their ability to invoke multiple tools, compose command chains, and combine chain-of-thought reasoning with deep research to execute complex tasks and take actions. This represents a major evolution beyond machine learning and large language models (LLM), toward systems capable of planning, executing, and coordinating complex workflows. In contrast to traditional LLMs, which primarily focus on generating and classifying information, agentic AI introduces elements of autonomy, reasoning, and orchestration, while digital twins extend this concept to dynamic virtual representations of patients and laboratory processes, capable of continuous learning, simulation and adaptation. This transition has profound implications for laboratory medicine, a field characterized by high data complexity, multi-omics integration, and stringent operational demands. At the same time, laboratories face growing expectations regarding efficiency, resource stewardship, and value-based healthcare delivery. This article explores both the opportunities and limitations of agentic AI in laboratory medicine, highlighting its potential to move beyond static automation toward autonomous, outcome-driven innovation. It also examines the ethical, interpretability, and governance considerations that must accompany its implementation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
41454792What 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.