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

From LIMSWiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
m (Protected "Template:Article of the week": High traffic page ([Edit=Allow only administrators] (indefinite) [Move=Allow only administrators] (indefinite)))
(Updated article of the week text)
 
(500 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:Tanzania hospital information mgt system.jpg|220px]]</div>
<div style="float: left; margin: 0.5em 0.9em 0.4em 0em;">[[File:Fig1 Čartolovni DigitalHealth2023 9.jpeg|240px]]</div>
A '''[[clinical laboratory]]''', (sometimes referred to as a '''medical laboratory''') is a laboratory where tests are done on clinical specimens in order to get information about the health of a patient as pertaining to the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease. The [[Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments]] (CLIA) program defines a clinical (medical) laboratory as "a facility that performs testing on materials derived from the human body for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of any disease or impairment of, or assessment of the health of, human beings."
'''"[[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]]"'''


The clinical laboratory at one level, whether chemistry or pathology, operates like many other testing laboratories. However, there are a number of operational differences between the clinical laboratory and the many other laboratories. One of these differences is the need to have a specific unidirectional workflow. This is intended to both minimize the risk of biohazard contamination, and to establish assurance that samples cross contamination is minimized. Another difference involves the regulations governing the management of patient data. This creates a significant challenge not generally experienced by other types of laboratories. ('''[[Clinical laboratory|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'': [[Hospital information system]], [[Imaging informatics]], [[Reference laboratory]]
{{flowlist |
<br />
* [[Journal:Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence|Judgements of research co-created by generative AI: Experimental evidence]]
* [[Journal:Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning approach|Geochemical biodegraded oil classification using a machine learning 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: