Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42761841›Full record

ReviewBiotechnology notes (Amsterdam, Netherlands)2026

Artificial intelligence in experimental and clinical in vitro analysis: applications, limitations, and future directions.

Zhinya Kawa Othman, Mohamed Mustaf Ahmed, Rahmatullah Nazari, Adamu Muhammad Ibrahim

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Biotechnology notes (Amsterdam, Netherlands), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Zhinya Kawa OthmanFaculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Mohamed Mustaf AhmedFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, SIMAD University, Mogadishu, Somalia.
Rahmatullah NazariFaculty of Dentistry, Cheragh Medical University, Kabul, Afghanistan.
Adamu Muhammad IbrahimFaculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, SIMAD University, Mogadishu, Somalia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The integration of artificial intelligence into in vitro analyses represents a transformative shift in laboratory medicine, diagnostics, and pharmaceutical research. Traditional in vitro methods, from cell culture assays to high-throughput screening, rely on manual interpretation and conventional statistics. Machine and deep learning now automate image analysis, improve diagnostic accuracy, accelerate drug discovery, and enhance quality control. Convolutional neural networks and predictive models have reported specialist-level performance in cell segmentation, biomarker detection, and pathological classification, although mainly in internal benchmark studies rather than in prospective clinical validations. However, important limitations persist, including dependence on data quality and standardization, limited external and prospective validation, algorithmic transparency, ethics and data governance, regulation, and unequal access to computing infrastructure. We examine the applications, limitations, and future directions of this technology. In this review, in vitro analysis refers to the laboratory examination of cells, tissues, and biological samples outside the living organism, and it spans both experimental discovery research and clinical in vitro diagnostics, which share analytical challenges but differ in their validation and regulatory requirements.

Indexed as

Artificial intelligenceDeep learningHigh-throughput screeningIn vitro analysisLaboratory automationMachine learning

Identifiers

PMID42761841
PMCPMC13587722

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.