ABSTRACT
Introduction: As Artificial Intelligence (AI) technology continues to assimilate into various industries, there is a huge scope in the healthcare industry specifically in clinical laboratories. The perspective of the laboratory professionals can give valuable insight on the ideal path to take for AI implementation. Methods: The study utilized a cross-sectional survey design and was conducted at the section of Chemical Pathology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, the Aga Khan University (AKU), Karachi, Pakistan in collaboration with Consultant Pathologists of 9 clinical laboratories associated with teaching hospitals across Pakistan from October-November 2023. The survey was for a duration of 2 weeks and was circulated to all working laboratory technical staff after informed consent. Results: A total of 351 responses were received, of which 342 (male=146, female=196) responses were recorded after exclusion. Respondents ranged from technologists, faculty, residents, and coordinators, and were from different sections (chemical pathology, microbiology, haematology, histopathology, POCT). Out of the total 312 (91.2%) of respondents stated that they were at least somewhat familiar with AI technology. Experts in AI were only 2.0% (n=7) of all respondents, but 90% (n=6) of these were < 30 years old. 76.3% (n=261) of the respondents felt the need to implement more AI technology in the laboratories, with time saving (26.1%) and improving performances of tests (17.7%) cited to be the greatest benefits of AI. Security concerns (n=144) and a fear of decreasing personal touch (n=143) were the main concerns of the respondents while the younger employees had an increased fear of losing their jobs. 76.3% were in favour of an increase in AI usage in the laboratories. Conclusion: This study highlights a favourable perspective among laboratory professionals, acknowledging the potential of AI to enhance both the efficiency and quality of laboratory practices. However, it underscores the importance of addressing their concerns in the thoughtful implementation of this emerging technology.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Human cell division cycle-associated protein 8 (CDCA8), a critical regulator of mitosis, has been identified as a prospective prognostic biomarker in several cancer types, including breast, colon, and lung cancers. This study analyzed the diagnostic/prognostic potential and clinical implications of CDCA8 across diverse cancers. METHODS: Bioinformatics and molecular experiments. RESULTS: Analyzing TCGA data via TIMER2 and GEPIA2 databases revealed significant up-regulation of CDCA8 in 23 cancer types compared to normal tissues. Prognostically, elevated CDCA8 expression correlated with poorer overall survival in KIRC, LUAD, and SKCM, emphasizing its potential as a prognostic marker. UALCAN analysis demonstrated CDCA8 up-regulation based on clinical variables, such as cancer stage, race, and gender, in these cancers. Epigenetic exploration indicated reduced CDCA8 promoter methylation levels in Kidney Renal Clear Cell Carcinoma (KIRC), Lung Adenocarcinoma (LUAD), and Skin Cutaneous Melanoma (SKCM) tissues compared to normal controls. Promoter methylation and mutational analyses showcased a hypomethylation and low mutation rate for CDCA8 in these cancers. Correlation analysis revealed positive associations between CDCA8 expression and infiltrating immune cells, particularly CD8+ and CD4+ T cells. Protein-protein interaction (PPI) network analysis unveiled key interacting proteins, while gene enrichment analysis highlighted their involvement in crucial cellular processes and pathways. Additionally, exploration of CDCA8-associated drugs through DrugBank presented potential therapeutic options for KIRC, LUAD, and SKCM. In vitro validation using reverse transcription-quantitative polymerase chain reaction (RT-qPCR) confirmed elevated CDCA8 expression in LUAD cell lines (A549 and H1299) compared to control cell lines (Beas-2B and NL-20). CONCLUSION: This study provides concise insights into CDCA8's multifaceted role in KIRC, LUAD, and SKCM, covering expression patterns, diagnostic and prognostic relevance, epigenetic regulation, mutational landscape, immune infiltration, and therapeutic implications.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Serum Protein Electrophoresis (SPE) is crucial for the diagnosis and follow-up of monoclonal gammopathy (MG), as it helps to separate and identify these paraproteins. Currently, Pakistan lacks standardized guidelines for SPE reporting and analytical performance. This survey aims to analyze reporting variations from Consultant Chemical Pathologists in Pakistani laboratories. METHODS: This cross-sectional survey was conducted by the section of Chemical Pathology, Department of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, at Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi. A previously validated and published tool was used with some modifications to assess analytical techniques, reporting patterns, and interpretations provided with SPE by different laboratories. Frequency and percentages were calculated for each response and descriptive results were also evaluated. Differences between laboratories were also assessed qualitatively. RESULTS: Out of the eight laboratories contacted, seven participated in the survey, yielding a response rate of 87.5%. Immunofixation Electrophoresis (IFE) was used by all labs for serum immunotyping. All labs reported a new small abnormal band in patients with no known monoclonal gammopathy or with a known M-protein. Variations were found in terminologies used to label paraprotein, terminologies used to report normal and pathological SPE patterns, electrophoretic technique, methods for quantifying paraprotein in the gamma region on SPE and for albumin quantification. Similarly, the number of decimal places reported, reporting of multiple monoclonal proteins and small paraprotein in the beta region or monoclonal proteins less than 1 g/L, approach for screening, number of fractions reported in gamma region and reporting of interferences were also not standardized and var-iations were noticed. CONCLUSIONS: Our survey highlighted variations in practices of SPE reporting. These differences in laboratory practices could result in inconsistent test results, which could adversely affect patient care.