Use of artificial intelligence technologies in laboratory medicine, their effectiveness and application scenarios: a systematic review
摘要
BACKGROUND: With the increasing volume of data, laboratory medicine requires automation and standardization of routine processes to reduce workload on healthcare professionals and clear their time for more specialized tasks. Machine learning models and artificial neural networks support image recognition and analysis of large data sets, which allows their integration into laboratory workflows to solve routine tasks. AIM: This study aimed to analyze global scientific publications on the application of artificial intelligence technologies in laboratory medicine and their potential to address current challenges and identify barriers in their integration into laboratory workflows. METHODS: A search for publications was conducted using PubMed, manufacturer websites offering ready-to-use laboratory solutions, and reference lists from other reviews. The Mendeley software was utilized for bibliographic data management. The search covered the time interval 2019–2024. Obtained data included bibliometric indicators, research areas, key methodological characteristics, diagnostic effectiveness values for artificial intelligence systems and healthcare professionals, the number and experience of involved healthcare professionals, and validated outcomes of artificial intelligence implementation. The study quality was assessed using a modified QUADAS-CAD checklist. RESULTS: Twenty-three publications presenting studies at the pre-analytical (n = 1), analytical (n = 19), and post-analytical (n = 3) stages of laboratory analysis were included. Most studies focused on cytology and microbiology, accounting for 48% and 35% of the studies, respectively. Artificial intelligence demonstrated high effectiveness in solving tasks across all stages of the laboratory process. Moreover, its diagnostic accuracy was comparable to that of healthcare professionals; however, decision-making speed was higher. All studies demonstrated a risk of systematic bias, which was associated with unbalanced sample