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)
 
(99 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:Fig3 Arifin JofMedBio21 40.png|240px]]</div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Niszczota EconBusRev23 9-2.png|240px]]</div>
'''"[[Journal:Error evaluation in the laboratory testing process and laboratory information systems|Error evaluation in the laboratory testing process and laboratory information systems]]"'''
'''"[[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence]]"'''


The [[laboratory]] testing process consists of five analysis phases, featuring the total testing process (TTP) framework. Activities in laboratory processing, including those of testing, are error-prone and affect the use of [[laboratory information system]]s (LIS). This study seeks to identify error factors related to system use, as well as the first and last phases of the laboratory testing process, using a proposed framework known as the "total testing process for laboratory information systems" (TTP-LIS). We conducted a qualitative case study evaluation in two private [[hospital]]s and a [[Clinical laboratory|medical laboratory]]. We collected data using interviews, observations, and document analysis methods involving physicians, nurses, an information technology officer, and the laboratory staff... ('''[[Journal:Error evaluation in the laboratory testing process and laboratory information systems|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'':
{{flowlist |
{{flowlist |
* [[Journal:Laboratory demand management strategies: An overview|Laboratory demand management strategies: An overview]]
* [[Journal:Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach|Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach]]
* [[Journal:A scoping review of integrated blockchain-cloud architecture for healthcare: Applications, challenges, and solutions|A scoping review of integrated blockchain-cloud architecture for healthcare: Applications, challenges, and solutions]]
* [[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:Laboratory information management system for the biosafety laboratory: Safety and efficiency|Laboratory information management system for the biosafety laboratory: Safety and efficiency]]
* [[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]]
}}
}}

Latest 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"