Difference between revisions of "Template:Article of the week"

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Added content)
(Updated article of the week text)
(463 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Konelab60i.png|220px]]</div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Niszczota EconBusRev23 9-2.png|240px]]</div>
'''[[Clinical chemistry]]''' (sometimes referred to as '''chemical pathology''') is the area of [[clinical pathology]] that is generally concerned with analysis of bodily fluids. The discipline originated in the late nineteenth century with the use of simple chemical tests for various components of blood and urine. Subsequent to this, other techniques were applied including the use and measurement of enzyme activities, spectrophotometry, [[electrophoresis]], and [[immunoassay]].
'''"[[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence]]"'''


Today [[Clinical laboratory|clinical laboratories]] are now highly automated to accommodate the high workload typical of a hospital laboratory or [[reference laboratory]]. A large clinical laboratory will accept samples for up to about 700 different kinds of tests. Even the largest of laboratories rarely do all these tests themselves, and some must be referred to other labs. This large array of tests can be further sub-categorized into sub-specialties like general or routine chemistry, special chemistry, clinical endocrinology, [[toxicology]], therapeutic drug monitoring, urinalysis, and fecal analysis. ('''[[Clinical chemistry|Full article...]]''')<br />
The introduction of [[ChatGPT]] has fuelled a public debate on the appropriateness of using generative [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) ([[large language model]]s or LLMs) in work, including a debate on how they might be used (and abused) by researchers. In the current work, we test whether delegating parts of the research process to LLMs leads people to distrust researchers and devalues their scientific work. Participants (''N'' = 402) considered a researcher who delegates elements of the research process to a PhD student or LLM and rated three aspects of such delegation. Firstly, they rated whether it is morally appropriate to do so. Secondly, they judged whether—after deciding to delegate the research process—they would trust the scientist (who decided to delegate) to oversee future projects ... ('''[[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Full article...]]''')<br />
<br />
''Recently featured'':
''Recently featured'': [[Desktop virtualization]], [[Comprehensive outpatient rehabilitation facility]], [[National Institutes of Health]]
{{flowlist |
* [[Journal:Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach|Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach]]
* [[Journal:Knowledge of internal quality control for laboratory tests among laboratory personnel working in a biochemistry department of a tertiary care center: A descriptive cross-sectional study|Knowledge of internal quality control for laboratory tests among laboratory personnel working in a biochemistry department of a tertiary care center: A descriptive cross-sectional study]]
* [[Journal:Sigma metrics as a valuable tool for effective analytical performance and quality control planning in the clinical laboratory: A retrospective study|Sigma metrics as a valuable tool for effective analytical performance and quality control planning in the clinical laboratory: A retrospective study]]
}}

Revision as of 15:26, 20 May 2024

Fig1 Niszczota EconBusRev23 9-2.png

"Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence"

The introduction of ChatGPT has fuelled a public debate on the appropriateness of using generative artificial intelligence (AI) (large language models or LLMs) in work, including a debate on how they might be used (and abused) by researchers. In the current work, we test whether delegating parts of the research process to LLMs leads people to distrust researchers and devalues their scientific work. Participants (N = 402) considered a researcher who delegates elements of the research process to a PhD student or LLM and rated three aspects of such delegation. Firstly, they rated whether it is morally appropriate to do so. Secondly, they judged whether—after deciding to delegate the research process—they would trust the scientist (who decided to delegate) to oversee future projects ... (Full article...)
Recently featured:

Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Article_of_the_week&oldid=63646"