ArticleMedicine2026
Establishment of an intelligent auto-verification system for infectious serological markers in a clinical laboratory from West China.
Article in Medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate an auto-verification system for serological markers of infectious diseases in a clinical laboratory, with the goal of ensuring reliable results while shortening the turnaround time for reports, reducing the need for human resources, and improving work efficiency. Based on the guidelines and clinical requirements, personalized auto-verification rules were established. Then, the serological marker results of 144,927 samples (including hepatitis B, hepatitis C, Treponema pallidum, and human immunodeficiency virus) were used for verification, and the performance of the auto-verification system was evaluated. The auto-verification system enabled our laboratory to shorten the turnaround time by 21.13% (from 369.54 minutes to 291.47 minutes) while increasing the sample volume. The pass rate, sensitivity, specificity, false positive rate, and false negative rate of the auto-verification system were 54.81%, 100%, 54.99%, 45.01% and 0%, respectively. Further analysis of the reasons for the failure of auto-verification revealed that a portion of the samples were blocked due to technical issues with the laboratory information system. Further improvements are needed in the future. Establishing an appropriate auto-verification system based on the actual situation of the laboratory is an important means to ensure medical safety, while improving the efficiency of the clinical laboratory and reducing labor costs.
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.