Laboratory medicine is a digital science. Every large hospital produces a wealth of data each day—from simple numerical results from, e.g., sodium measurements to highly complex output of “-omics” analyses, as well as quality control results and metadata. Processing, connecting, storing, and ordering extensive parts of these individual data requires Big Data techniques. Whereas novel technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning have exciting application for the augmentation of laboratory medicine, the Big Data concept remains fundamental for any sophisticated data analysis in large databases. To make laboratory medicine data optimally usable for clinical and research purposes, they need to be FAIR: findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. This can be achieved, for example, by automated recording, connection of devices, efficient ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) processes, careful data governance, and modern data security solutions. Enriched with clinical data, laboratory medicine data allow a gain in pathophysiological insights, can improve patient care, or can be used to develop reference intervals for diagnostic purposes. Nevertheless, Big Data in laboratory medicine do not come without challenges: the growing number of analyses and data derived from them is a demanding task to be taken care of. Laboratory medicine experts are and will be needed to drive this development, take an active role in the ongoing digitalization, and provide guidance for their clinical colleagues engaging with the laboratory data in research.

The amount of data generated in the field of laboratory medicine has grown to an extent that conventional laboratory information systems (LISs) are struggling to manage and analyze this complex, entangled information (“Big Data”). Statistical learning, a generalized framework from machine learning (ML) and artificial intelligence (AI) is predestined for processing “Big Data” and holds the potential to revolutionize the field of laboratory medicine. Personalized medicine may in particular benefit from AI-based systems, especially when coupled with readily available wearables and smartphones which can collect health data from individual patients and offer new, cost-effective access routes to healthcare for patients worldwide. The amount of personal data collected, however, also raises concerns about patient-privacy and calls for clear ethical guidelines for “Big Data” research, including rigorous quality checks of data and algorithms to eliminate underlying bias and enable transparency. Likewise, novel federated privacy-preserving data processing approaches may reduce the need for centralized data storage. Generative AI-systems including large language models such as ChatGPT currently enter the stage to reshape clinical research, clinical decision-support systems, and healthcare delivery. In our opinion, AI-based systems have a tremendous potential to transform laboratory medicine, however, their opportunities should be weighed against the risks carefully. Despite all enthusiasm, we advocate for stringent added-value assessments, just as for any new drug or treatment. Human experts should carefully validate AI-based systems, including patient-privacy protection, to ensure quality, transparency, and public acceptance. In this opinion paper, data prerequisites, recent developments, chances, and limitations of statistical learning approaches are highlighted.

Objectives: Reference intervals for the general clinical practice are expected to cover non-pathological values, but also reflect the underlying biological variation present in age- and gender-specific patient populations. Reference intervals can be inferred from routine patient data measured in high capacity using parametric approaches. Stratified reference distributions are obtained which may be transformed to normality via e.g. a Yeo-Johnson transformation. The estimation of the optimal transformation parameter for Yeo-Johnson through maximum likelihood can be highly influenced by the presence of outlying observations, resulting in biased reference interval estimates. Methods: To reduce the influence of outlying observations on parametric reference interval estimation, a reweighted M-estimator approach for the Yeo-Johnson (YJ) transformation was utilised to achieve central normality in stratified reference populations for a variety of laboratory test results. The reweighted M-estimator for the YJ transformation offers a robust parametric approach to infer relevant reference intervals. Results: The proposed method showcases robustness up to 15 % of outliers present in routine patient data, highlighting the applicability of the reweighted M-estimator in laboratory medicine. Furthermore, reference intervals are personalised based on the patients’ age and gender for a variety of analytes from routine patient data collected in a tertiary hospital, robustly reducing the dimensionality of the data for more data-driven approaches. Conclusions: The method shows the advantages for estimating reference intervals directly and parametrically from routine patient data in order to provide expected reference ranges. This approach to locally inferred reference intervals allows a more nuanced comparison of patients’ test results.

Background: Reference intervals (RIs) for patient test results are in standard use across many medical disciplines, allowing physicians to identify measurements indicating potentially pathological states with relative ease. The process of inferring cohort-specific RIs is, however, often ignored because of the high costs and cumbersome efforts associated with it. Sophisticated analysis tools are required to automatically infer relevant and locally specific RIs directly from routine laboratory data. These tools would effectively connect clinical laboratory databases to physicians and provide personalized target ranges for the respective cohort population. Objective: This study aims to describe the BioRef infrastructure, a multicentric governance and IT framework for the estimation and assessment of patient group–specific RIs from routine clinical laboratory data using an innovative decentralized data-sharing approach and a sophisticated, clinically oriented graphical user interface for data analysis. Methods: A common governance agreement and interoperability standards have been established, allowing the harmonization of multidimensional laboratory measurements from multiple clinical databases into a unified “big data” resource. International coding systems, such as the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10); unique identifiers for medical devices from the Global Unique Device Identification Database; type identifiers from the Global Medical Device Nomenclature; and a universal transfer logic, such as the Resource Description Framework (RDF), are used to align the routine laboratory data of each data provider for use within the BioRef framework. With a decentralized data-sharing approach, the BioRef data can be evaluated by end users from each cohort site following a strict “no copy, no move” principle, that is, only data aggregates for the intercohort analysis of target ranges are exchanged. Results: The TI4Health distributed and secure analytics system was used to implement the proposed federated and privacy-preserving approach and comply with the limitations applied to sensitive patient data. Under the BioRef interoperability consensus, clinical partners enable the computation of RIs via the TI4Health graphical user interface for query without exposing the underlying raw data. The interface was developed for use by physicians and clinical laboratory specialists and allows intuitive and interactive data stratification by patient factors (age, sex, and personal medical history) as well as laboratory analysis determinants (device, analyzer, and test kit identifier). This consolidated effort enables the creation of extremely detailed and patient group–specific queries, allowing the generation of individualized, covariate-adjusted RIs on the fly. Conclusions: With the BioRef-TI4Health infrastructure, a framework for clinical physicians and researchers to define precise RIs immediately in a convenient, privacy-preserving, and reproducible manner has been implemented, promoting a vital part of practicing precision medicine while streamlining compliance and avoiding transfers of raw patient data. This new approach can provide a crucial update on RIs and improve patient care for personalized medicine.

Laboratory medicine is a digital science. Every large hospital produces a wealth of data each day - from simple numerical results from e.g. sodium measurements to highly complex output of “-omics” analyses, as well as quality control results and meta-data. Processing, connecting, storing, and ordering extensive parts of these individual data requires Big Data techniques. Whereas novel technologies such as artificial intelligence and machine learning have exciting application for the augmentation of laboratory medicine, the Big Data concept remains fundamental for any sophisticated data analysis in large databases. To make laboratory medicine data optimally usable for clinical and research purposes, they need to be FAIR: findable, accessible, interoperable, and reusable. This can be achieved for example by automated recording, connection of devices, efficient ETL (Extract, Transform, Load) processes, careful data governance, and modern data security solutions. Enriched with clinical data, laboratory medicine data allow a gain in pathophysiological insights, can improve patient care, or they can be used to develop reference intervals for diagnostic purposes. Nevertheless, Big Data in laboratory medicine do not come without challenges: The growing number of analyses and data derived from them is a demanding task to be taken care of. Laboratory medicine experts are and will be needed to drive this development, take an active role in the ongoing digitalization, and provide guidance for their clinical colleagues engaging with the laboratory data in research.

Traditional methods for estimating reference intervals (RIs) using patient's blood test results from the clinical routine, typically remove outliers without considering the nuanced health statuses of patients. This removes a vast majority of test results for reference interval estimation without considering the actual health status of the patient. We introduce the Differential Distribution Method (DDM) which uses laboratory routine data coded with ICD-10 to approximate an underlying non-diseased age and sex stratified population from mixed clinical data. By removing test results that stem from subpopulations significantly different from the general population, reference intervals can be generated stratified by sex and age, taking into account the associated health conditions of the patients as derived by the ICD-10 coding system. Applying the DDM to blood plasma potassium levels demonstrated its ability to adjust RIs dynamically across different patient groups. The method effectively differentiated RIs in a decade-based stratification, showing significant variability and tighter confidence intervals, particularly in older (above 60 years old) adults. The RIs were slightly wider with advancing age in both males and females, while their standard deviation was reduced by removing large portions of test results differing significantly, grouped by either their individual ICD-10 code or clusters of ICD-10 codes. This DDM data mining approach offers a robust framework for RI inference by generating adjusted RIs that incorporate clinical nuances reflected in ICD-10 codes. This approach not only enhances the accuracy of patient diagnostics but also facilitates the identification of potential multimorbidities affecting laboratory results.