Verify the record.
Review the original document, extracted value, unit, date, and laboratory reference interval. Extraction uncertainty should trigger review rather than a confident interpretation.
A proposed laboratory intelligence workspace built around reviewability, longitudinal context, and clear boundaries between observations and clinical decisions.
The intended workflow preserves the path from every extracted observation back to its source. Clinicians should be able to inspect the record, recognize limitations, and correct errors before relying on a summary.
Review the original document, extracted value, unit, date, and laboratory reference interval. Extraction uncertainty should trigger review rather than a confident interpretation.
Different laboratories, methods, and units can complicate comparison. The proposed normalization layer must preserve provenance and flag unresolved differences.
Read the timeline alongside relevant clinical information. A summarized pattern is an observation for assessment, not an autonomous clinical conclusion.
The clinician determines follow-up, escalation, testing, and treatment. The product vision supports that workflow without delegating clinical authority to the model.
Original reports and extracted measurements should remain linked throughout the workflow.
Our principles ↗Missing dates, ambiguous units, and incomplete records should be surfaced before analysis.
From report to record ↗Every future clinical model needs a specific population, outcome, and validation plan.
Validation approach ↗We welcome discussions about intended use, evaluation design, workflow fit, and the limits that matter in clinical practice. This is an invitation to explore collaboration, not a claim of existing clinical partnerships.
Prepare a collaboration enquiry ↗