Using Machine Learning to Predict Laboratory Test Results
Abstract
Objectives While clinical laboratories report most test results as individual numbers, findings, or observations, clinical diagnosis usually relies on the results of multiple tests. Clinical decision support that integrates multiple elements of laboratory data could be highly useful in enhancing laboratory diagnosis. Methods Using the analyte ferritin in a proof of concept, we extracted clinical laboratory data from patient testing and applied a variety of machine-learning algorithms to predict ferritin test results using the results from other tests. We compared predicted with measured results and reviewed selected cases to assess the clinical value of predicted ferritin. Results We show that patient demographics and results of other laboratory tests can discriminate normal from abnormal ferritin results with a high degree of accuracy (area under the curve as high as 0.97, held-out test data). Case review indicated that predicted ferritin results may sometimes better reflect underlying iron status than measured ferritin. Conclusions These findings highlight the substantial informational redundancy present in patient test results and offer a potential foundation for a novel type of clinical decision support aimed at integrating, interpreting, and enhancing the diagnostic value of multianalyte sets of clinical laboratory test results.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Missing data were usually ignored by dropping data or imputing, and if not dealt with appropriately can skew the results.
“Missing data were usually ignored by dropping data or imputing, if not dealt with appropriately can skew the results68,106,173.”
From Multimodal machine learning in precision health: A scoping review (2022) · cites this paper as [173]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 17 · Cited by 162
- Authors
- Luo, Y., Szolovits, P., Dighe, A. S., & Baron, J. M.
- Affiliations
- Massachusetts Institute of Technology (US)
- Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge
- Harvard University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Baron, Jason M
- Venue
- American Journal of Clinical Pathology
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2016-06-01
- Volume
- 145
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 778-788
- ISSN
- 0002-9173 (ISSN-L)
- 1943-7722
- OpenAlex
- W2468477102
- Cited by
- 162
- References
- 17
- Citations by year
- 2026: 12 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 33 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 18 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 4
- FWCI
- 19.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- Locations
- American Journal of Clinical Pathology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › Health Information Management › Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Clinical Laboratory Practices and Quality Control
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Machine Learning in Healthcare
- Keywords
- ferritin, clinical decision support, iron status, laboratory diagnosis, machine learning prediction, clinical laboratory data
- MeSH terms
- Machine Learning, Adult, Aged, Algorithms, Decision Support Techniques, Female, Ferritins, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Decision Support Systems, Clinical
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review