Philippe Halfon , Guillaume Penaranda , Dan Ringwald , Frederique Retornaz , Nicolas Boissel , Sylvain Bodard , Jean Marc Feryn , David Bensoussan , Patrice Cacoub
{"title":"调查贫血的实验室测试:从专家系统到人工智能","authors":"Philippe Halfon , Guillaume Penaranda , Dan Ringwald , Frederique Retornaz , Nicolas Boissel , Sylvain Bodard , Jean Marc Feryn , David Bensoussan , Patrice Cacoub","doi":"10.1016/j.plabm.2024.e00357","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the laboratory tests conducted in real-life settings for patients with anemia with the expected prescriptions derived from an optimal checkup.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A panel of experts formulated an “optimal laboratory test assessment\" specific to each anemia profile. A retrospective analysis was done of the laboratory tests conducted according to the type of anemia (microcytic, normocytic or macrocytic). Using an algorithmic system, the laboratory tests performed in real-life practice were compared with the recommendations suggested in the “optimal laboratory test assessment” and with seemingly “unnecessary” laboratory tests.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In the analysis of the “optimal laboratory test assessment”, of the 1179 patients with microcytic anemia, 269 (22.8%) had had one of the three tests recommended by the expert system, and only 33 (2.8%) had all three tests. For normocytic anemia, 1054 of 2313 patients (45.6%) had one of the eleven recommended tests, and none had all eleven. Of the 384 patients with macrocytic anemia, 196 (51%) had one of the four recommended tests, and none had all four. In the analysis of “unnecessary laboratory tests\", one lab test was unnecessarily done in 727/3876 patients (18.8%), i.e. 339 of 1179 (28.8%) microcytic, 171 of 2313 (7.4%) normocytic, and 217 of 384 (56.5 %) macrocytic anemias.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Laboratory investigations of anemia remain imperfect as more than half of the cases did not receive the expected tests. Analyzing other diagnostic domains, the authors are currently developing an artificial intelligence system to assist physicians in enhancing the efficiency of their laboratory test prescriptions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":20421,"journal":{"name":"Practical Laboratory Medicine","volume":"39 ","pages":"Article e00357"},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352551724000039/pdfft?md5=2ffe98457e0edcdbb69e1c04318ccbe6&pid=1-s2.0-S2352551724000039-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Laboratory tests for investigating anemia: From an expert system to artificial intelligence\",\"authors\":\"Philippe Halfon , Guillaume Penaranda , Dan Ringwald , Frederique Retornaz , Nicolas Boissel , Sylvain Bodard , Jean Marc Feryn , David Bensoussan , Patrice Cacoub\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.plabm.2024.e00357\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><p>To compare the laboratory tests conducted in real-life settings for patients with anemia with the expected prescriptions derived from an optimal checkup.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A panel of experts formulated an “optimal laboratory test assessment\\\" specific to each anemia profile. A retrospective analysis was done of the laboratory tests conducted according to the type of anemia (microcytic, normocytic or macrocytic). Using an algorithmic system, the laboratory tests performed in real-life practice were compared with the recommendations suggested in the “optimal laboratory test assessment” and with seemingly “unnecessary” laboratory tests.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>In the analysis of the “optimal laboratory test assessment”, of the 1179 patients with microcytic anemia, 269 (22.8%) had had one of the three tests recommended by the expert system, and only 33 (2.8%) had all three tests. For normocytic anemia, 1054 of 2313 patients (45.6%) had one of the eleven recommended tests, and none had all eleven. Of the 384 patients with macrocytic anemia, 196 (51%) had one of the four recommended tests, and none had all four. In the analysis of “unnecessary laboratory tests\\\", one lab test was unnecessarily done in 727/3876 patients (18.8%), i.e. 339 of 1179 (28.8%) microcytic, 171 of 2313 (7.4%) normocytic, and 217 of 384 (56.5 %) macrocytic anemias.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Laboratory investigations of anemia remain imperfect as more than half of the cases did not receive the expected tests. Analyzing other diagnostic domains, the authors are currently developing an artificial intelligence system to assist physicians in enhancing the efficiency of their laboratory test prescriptions.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20421,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Practical Laboratory Medicine\",\"volume\":\"39 \",\"pages\":\"Article e00357\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352551724000039/pdfft?md5=2ffe98457e0edcdbb69e1c04318ccbe6&pid=1-s2.0-S2352551724000039-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Practical Laboratory Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352551724000039\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Practical Laboratory Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352551724000039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICAL LABORATORY TECHNOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Laboratory tests for investigating anemia: From an expert system to artificial intelligence
Objective
To compare the laboratory tests conducted in real-life settings for patients with anemia with the expected prescriptions derived from an optimal checkup.
Methods
A panel of experts formulated an “optimal laboratory test assessment" specific to each anemia profile. A retrospective analysis was done of the laboratory tests conducted according to the type of anemia (microcytic, normocytic or macrocytic). Using an algorithmic system, the laboratory tests performed in real-life practice were compared with the recommendations suggested in the “optimal laboratory test assessment” and with seemingly “unnecessary” laboratory tests.
Results
In the analysis of the “optimal laboratory test assessment”, of the 1179 patients with microcytic anemia, 269 (22.8%) had had one of the three tests recommended by the expert system, and only 33 (2.8%) had all three tests. For normocytic anemia, 1054 of 2313 patients (45.6%) had one of the eleven recommended tests, and none had all eleven. Of the 384 patients with macrocytic anemia, 196 (51%) had one of the four recommended tests, and none had all four. In the analysis of “unnecessary laboratory tests", one lab test was unnecessarily done in 727/3876 patients (18.8%), i.e. 339 of 1179 (28.8%) microcytic, 171 of 2313 (7.4%) normocytic, and 217 of 384 (56.5 %) macrocytic anemias.
Conclusion
Laboratory investigations of anemia remain imperfect as more than half of the cases did not receive the expected tests. Analyzing other diagnostic domains, the authors are currently developing an artificial intelligence system to assist physicians in enhancing the efficiency of their laboratory test prescriptions.
期刊介绍:
Practical Laboratory Medicine is a high-quality, peer-reviewed, international open-access journal publishing original research, new methods and critical evaluations, case reports and short papers in the fields of clinical chemistry and laboratory medicine. The objective of the journal is to provide practical information of immediate relevance to workers in clinical laboratories. The primary scope of the journal covers clinical chemistry, hematology, molecular biology and genetics relevant to laboratory medicine, microbiology, immunology, therapeutic drug monitoring and toxicology, laboratory management and informatics. We welcome papers which describe critical evaluations of biomarkers and their role in the diagnosis and treatment of clinically significant disease, validation of commercial and in-house IVD methods, method comparisons, interference reports, the development of new reagents and reference materials, reference range studies and regulatory compliance reports. Manuscripts describing the development of new methods applicable to laboratory medicine (including point-of-care testing) are particularly encouraged, even if preliminary or small scale.