ArticleBioinformation2026
Evaluation of diagnostic accuracy using routine laboratory parameters.
Article in Bioinformation, 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Early disease detection remains challenging in clinical practice, often leading to delayed diagnosis and poorer health outcomes. Therefore, it is of interest to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of routine laboratory parameters for early disease detection among 486 adults attending a tertiary care hospital between January 2023 and December 2024. Standard laboratory investigations including complete blood count, metabolic panel, liver and kidney function tests and inflammatory markers were analyzed against confirmed diagnostic outcomes using sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and receiver operating characteristic analysis. Combined laboratory panels demonstrated significantly higher diagnostic accuracy (AUC = 0.847) than individual parameters, with inflammatory markers showing the highest sensitivity (82.4%) and the neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio providing the best sensitivity-specificity balance. Integration of multiple routine laboratory parameters may therefore offer a cost-effective and practical strategy for improving early disease detection in diverse healthcare settings.
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.