Use of Artificial Intelligence in the Search for New Information Through Routine Laboratory Tests: Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In recent decades, the use of artificial intelligence has been widely explored in health care. Similarly, the amount of data generated in the most varied medical processes has practically doubled every year, requiring new methods of analysis and treatment of these data. Mainly aimed at aiding in the diagnosis and prevention of diseases, this precision medicine has shown great potential in different medical disciplines. Laboratory tests, for example, almost always present their results separately as individual values. However, physicians need to analyze a set of results to propose a supposed diagnosis, which leads us to think that sets of laboratory tests may contain more information than those presented separately for each result. In this way, the processes of medical laboratories can be strongly affected by these techniques. Objective: In this sense, we sought to identify scientific research that used laboratory tests and machine learning techniques to predict hidden information and diagnose diseases. Methods: The methodology adopted used the population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes principle, searching the main engineering and health sciences databases. The search terms were defined based on the list of terms used in the Medical Subject Heading database. Data from this study were presented descriptively and followed the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses; 2020) statement flow diagram and the National Institutes of Health tool for quality assessment of articles. During the analysis, the inclusion and exclusion criteria were independently applied by 2 authors, with a third author being consulted in cases of disagreement. Results: Following the defined requirements, 40 studies presenting good quality in the analysis process were selected and evaluated. We found that, in recent years, there has been a significant increase in the number of works that have used this methodology, mainly because of COVID-19. In general, the studies used machine learning classification models to predict new information, and the most used parameters were data from routine laboratory tests such as the complete blood count. Conclusions: Finally, we conclude that laboratory tests, together with machine learning techniques, can predict new tests, thus helping the search for new diagnoses. This process has proved to be advantageous and innovative for medical laboratories. It is making it possible to discover hidden information and propose additional tests, reducing the number of false negatives and helping in the early discovery of unknown diseases.
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 | 0.044 | 0.170 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.026 | 0.024 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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".