Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42766625›Full record

ArticlePloS one2026

Shall we repeat? Predicting the necessity to repeat blood testing in pediatric emergency departments of laboratory tests previously performed in the community using a machine learning model.

Adi Shuchami, Teddy Lazebnik, Shai Ashkenazi, Avner Herman Cohen, Yael Reichenberg, Vered Shkalim Zemer

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2026. 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

6 authors.

Adi ShuchamiDepartment of Mathematics, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5750-1215
Teddy LazebnikDepartment of Information Systems, University of Haifa, Haifa, Israel.
Shai AshkenaziAdelson School of Medicine, Ariel University, Ariel, Israel.
Avner Herman CohenFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Yael ReichenbergDan Petach-Tikva District, Clalit Health Services, Petah Tikva, Central District, Israel.
Vered Shkalim ZemerFaculty of Medical and Health Sciences, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Community‑ordered laboratory blood tests are frequently re-ordered when the patients arrive at the pediatric emergency departments. When only a few hours separate the initial community blood tests from assessment in the emergency department, repeated laboratory testing often does not contribute to clinical management. Additional testing can inconvenience patients, increase out-of-pocket costs for patients and families, add costs to the healthcare system, and delay clinical decision-making. To address this issue, we collected community-issued laboratory tests for complete blood count, electrolytes, and C-reactive protein for children aged three months to 18 years treated in pediatric emergency departments within a nationwide Health Maintenance Organization. These were compared to repeated laboratory tests performed in the pediatric emergency department within 12 hours. Using these data, we first analyzed the frequency of the justified repeated testing according to pre-set criteria. Next, we developed a decision-support machine learning model to predict whether a laboratory test should be repeated, leveraging the patient's prior community laboratory results and sociodemographic features. For complete blood count, electrolytes, and C-reactive protein, we found that only 13.3%, 16.3%, and 19.0% of the repeated tests, respectively, were deemed justified. Moreover, we show that an out-of-the-box XGboost model can predict the necessity for repeating these laboratory tests with 91.8%, 89.1%, and 79.2% accuracy, respectively. In the absence of false negatives, a condition of high clinical importance, the model maintains accuracies of 73.9%, 67.3%, and 55.4% for the three laboratory categories, respectively. This performance level remains sufficient to substantially reduce unnecessary repeat testing for complete blood count and electrolyte tests, but less so for C-reactive protein. The benefits of the model in clinical practice should be further studied.

Indexed as

Emergency Service, HospitalHematologic TestsMachine LearningAdolescentBlood Cell CountChildChild, PreschoolC-Reactive ProteinElectrolytesEmergency Room VisitsFemaleHumansInfantMalePredictive Learning ModelsC-Reactive ProteinElectrolytes

Identifiers

PMID42766625
PMCPMC13592682

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.