Development of an Artificial Intelligence Verification System Model for Clinical Biochemistry Laboratories Using Machine Learning

ABSTRACT Background With the exponential growth of testing samples in clinical biochemistry laboratories, traditional manual verification methods are increasingly challenged by inefficiency and human error. Machine learning (ML) technology offers a promising solution to enhance the accuracy and speed of laboratory report validation. The aim of this study was to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) verification system using ML algorithms to address these challenges. Methods From January to November 2024, a dataset comprising 6382 clinical reports with 38 biochemical parameters and demographic characteristics was extracted from the Roche Infinity system. Three ML algorithms (XGBoost, random forest, and logistic regression) were trained and validated using 5‐fold cross‐validation. Model performance was evaluated based on the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, precision, recall, F 1 ‐score, and average precision. In a double‐blind test, experienced laboratory personnel were compared with the AI verification system, and the pass rate, false negative rate, and turnaround time were recorded. Results The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the XGBoost, random forest, and logistic regression training models for the test set were 0.970, 0.985, and 0.742, respectively. The precisions were 0.83, 0.87, and 0.55; recalls were 0.92, 0.95, and 0.63; and F 1 ‐scores were 0.87, 0.91, and 0.59, respectively. The precision‐recall curves showed that the average precisions were 0.937, 0.972, and 0.625, respectively. The AI system achieved a pass rate of 88.14% and a false negative rate of 0.62% in the double‐blind test. The median turnaround time was reduced by 23.6% (from 89 to 68 min), with the 90th percentile improving by 14.3% (from 154 to 132 min). Conclusions The constructed AI verification system performed excellently in terms of accuracy and efficiency. This study provides a new solution for the intelligent verification of clinical biochemistry laboratories and has certain application value.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
iLABMED
Published
2025-08-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1002/ila2.70029
Citations
1
Primary Topic
Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
1.16
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Development of an Artificial Intelligence Verification System Model for Clinical Biochemistry Laboratories Using Machine Learning

Rong Zheng, Qiuliang Yang, Jingzhao Mei, Jin Dong et al.
1 citations
iLABMED
Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
1.16
article

Development of an Artificial Intelligence Verification System Model for Clinical Biochemistry Laboratories Using Machine Learning

Rong Zheng, Qiuliang Yang, Jingzhao Mei, Jin Dong, J L Feng, Xu Zhang, Xuemei Wei, Hui Ding, J. Ma, Yanhong Gao, Lin Zhu, Jing Gao, Jianzhu Wang
article en
1 citations

Abstract

ABSTRACT Background With the exponential growth of testing samples in clinical biochemistry laboratories, traditional manual verification methods are increasingly challenged by inefficiency and human error. Machine learning (ML) technology offers a promising solution to enhance the accuracy and speed of laboratory report validation. The aim of this study was to develop an artificial intelligence (AI) verification system using ML algorithms to address these challenges. Methods From January to November 2024, a dataset comprising 6382 clinical reports with 38 biochemical parameters and demographic characteristics was extracted from the Roche Infinity system. Three ML algorithms (XGBoost, random forest, and logistic regression) were trained and validated using 5‐fold cross‐validation. Model performance was evaluated based on the areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves, precision, recall, F 1 ‐score, and average precision. In a double‐blind test, experienced laboratory personnel were compared with the AI verification system, and the pass rate, false negative rate, and turnaround time were recorded. Results The areas under the receiver operating characteristic curves of the XGBoost, random forest, and logistic regression training models for the test set were 0.970, 0.985, and 0.742, respectively. The precisions were 0.83, 0.87, and 0.55; recalls were 0.92, 0.95, and 0.63; and F 1 ‐scores were 0.87, 0.91, and 0.59, respectively. The precision‐recall curves showed that the average precisions were 0.937, 0.972, and 0.625, respectively. The AI system achieved a pass rate of 88.14% and a false negative rate of 0.62% in the double‐blind test. The median turnaround time was reduced by 23.6% (from 89 to 68 min), with the 90th percentile improving by 14.3% (from 154 to 132 min). Conclusions The constructed AI verification system performed excellently in terms of accuracy and efficiency. This study provides a new solution for the intelligent verification of clinical biochemistry laboratories and has certain application value.

iLABMEDVol. 3(4)
Chinese PLA General Hospital (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 15%
Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
1.16
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.