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

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Updated article of the week text)
(Updated article of the week text)
 
(105 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:Fig2 Starks JPathInfo2021 12.jpg|120px]]</div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Čartolovni DigitalHealth2023 9.jpeg|240px]]</div>
'''"[[Journal:Use of middleware data to dissect and optimize hematology autoverification|Use of middleware data to dissect and optimize hematology autoverification]]"'''
'''"[[Journal:Critical analysis of the impact of AI on the patient–physician relationship: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study|Critical analysis of the impact of AI on the patient–physician relationship: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study]]"'''


[[Hematology]] [[analysis]] comprises some of the highest volume tests run in [[Clinical laboratory|clinical laboratories]]. Autoverification of hematology results using computer-based rules reduces turnaround time for many [[Sample (material)|specimens]], while strategically targeting specimen review by technologist or pathologist. Autoverification rules had been developed over a decade at an 800-bed tertiary/quarternary care academic medical central laboratory serving both adult and pediatric populations. In the process of migrating to newer hematology instruments, we analyzed the rates of the autoverification rules/flags most commonly associated with triggering manual review. We were particularly interested in rules that on their own often led to manual review in the absence of other flags. Prior to the study, autoverification rates were 87.8% (out of 16,073 orders) for complete blood count (CBC) if ordered as a panel and 85.8% (out of 1,940 orders) for CBC components ordered individually (not as the panel). ('''[[Journal:Use of middleware data to dissect and optimize hematology autoverification|Full article...]]''')<br />
This qualitative study aims to present the aspirations, expectations, and critical analysis of the potential for [[artificial intelligence]] (AI) to transform the patient–physician relationship, according to multi-stakeholder insight. This study was conducted from June to December 2021, using an anticipatory ethics approach and sociology of expectations as the theoretical frameworks. It focused mainly on three groups of stakeholders, namely physicians (''n'' = 12), patients (''n'' = 15), and healthcare managers (''n'' = 11), all of whom are directly related to the adoption of AI in medicine (''n'' = 38). In this study, interviews were conducted with 40% of the patients in the sample (15/38), as well as 31% of the physicians (12/38) and 29% of health managers in the sample (11/38) ... ('''[[Journal:Critical analysis of the impact of AI on the patient–physician relationship: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study|Full article...]]''')<br />
<br />
''Recently featured'':
''Recently featured'':
{{flowlist |
{{flowlist |
* [[Journal:Automated cyber and privacy risk management toolkit|Automated cyber and privacy risk management toolkit]]
* [[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence]]
* [[Journal:Design of generalized search interfaces for health informatics|Design of generalized search interfaces for health informatics]]
* [[Journal:Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach|Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach]]
* [[Journal:Cybersecurity and privacy risk assessment of point-of-care systems in healthcare: A use case approach|Cybersecurity and privacy risk assessment of point-of-care systems in healthcare: A use case 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]]
}}
}}

Latest revision as of 15:48, 26 May 2024

Fig1 Čartolovni DigitalHealth2023 9.jpeg

"Critical analysis of the impact of AI on the patient–physician relationship: A multi-stakeholder qualitative study"

This qualitative study aims to present the aspirations, expectations, and critical analysis of the potential for artificial intelligence (AI) to transform the patient–physician relationship, according to multi-stakeholder insight. This study was conducted from June to December 2021, using an anticipatory ethics approach and sociology of expectations as the theoretical frameworks. It focused mainly on three groups of stakeholders, namely physicians (n = 12), patients (n = 15), and healthcare managers (n = 11), all of whom are directly related to the adoption of AI in medicine (n = 38). In this study, interviews were conducted with 40% of the patients in the sample (15/38), as well as 31% of the physicians (12/38) and 29% of health managers in the sample (11/38) ... (Full article...)
Recently featured:

Retrieved from "https://www.limswiki.org/index.php?title=Template:Article_of_the_week&oldid=63766"