Electronic tools in clinical laboratory diagnostics: key examples, limitations, and value in laboratory medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Electronic tools in clinical laboratory diagnostics can assist laboratory professionals, clinicians, and patients in medical diagnostic management and laboratory test interpretation. With increasing implementation of electronic health records (EHRs) and laboratory information systems worldwide, there is increasing demand for well-designed and evidence-based electronic resources. Both complex data-driven and simple interpretative electronic healthcare tools are currently available to improve the integration of clinical and laboratory information towards a more patient-centered approach to medicine. Several studies have reported positive clinical impact of electronic healthcare tool implementation in clinical laboratory diagnostics, including in the management of neonatal bilirubinemia, cardiac disease, and nutritional status. As patients have increasing access to their medical laboratory data, it is essential that accessible electronic healthcare tools are evidence-based and user-friendly for individuals of varying digital and medical literacy. Indeed, studies suggest electronic healthcare tool development processes significantly lack the involvement of relevant healthcare professionals and often present misinformation, including erroneous calculation algorithms or inappropriate interpretative recommendations. The current review provides an overview of the utility of available electronic healthcare tools in clinical laboratory diagnostics and critically reviews potential limitations and benefits of their clinical implementation. The Canadian Laboratory Initiative on Pediatric Reference Intervals (CALIPER) online database is also detailed as an example of a pediatric diagnostic tool with widespread global impact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.063 | 0.127 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".