HealthRadar
Research and development site. Synthetic demo only. Do not submit personal health information.
Home›Research›Development of a rules-based framework for patient-facing interpretation of laboratory results
Working Paper Published Not peer reviewed Version 1.0
Research and updates

Development of a rules-based framework for patient-facing interpretation of laboratory results

HealthRadar is a physician-informed, rules-based framework designed to move laboratory reporting beyond isolated abnormality flags. This paper describes its architecture for integrating related biomarkers, identifying clinically meaningful physiologic patterns, stratifying severity and urgency, reducing contradictory messaging, and generating bounded patient-facing explanations. The framework is intended as an interpretive communication layer rather than a diagnostic or autonomous clinical decision-making system.

Authors: Edward A. Rose, M.D., M.S.A., Steven E. Rose, Ph.D. · Working Paper 001 · Published: August 31, 2026

Working paper — not peer reviewed: This manuscript is an early-stage research publication and should not be treated as completed validation, evidence of clinical effectiveness, or medical advice.

Abstract

To describe development of a physician-informed, rules-based framework for contextual, patient-facing interpretation of routine laboratory testing. The framework was designed to address limitations of analyte-centric reporting by integrating biomarker relationships, prioritizing clinically meaningful signals, and clarifying overall urgency.

Keywords

  • Clinical laboratory information systems
  • Patient portals
  • Consumer health informatics
  • Health communication
  • Clinical decision support systems

Suggested citation

Rose EA, Rose SE. Development of a rules-based framework for patient-facing interpretation of laboratory results. HealthRadar Working Paper 001. 2026.

Stated limitations

The framework remains an early-stage prototype and has not undergone formal prospective clinical validation. The observations described in this manuscript are primarily conceptual and qualitative rather than outcome-based. Formal studies evaluating patient comprehension, effects on health-related anxiety, clinical appropriateness, interobserver agreement, and real-world workflow integration have not yet been completed.

Read paperDownload PDF

References

  1. Giardina TD, Modi V, Parrish DE, et al. The patient portal and abnormal test results: An exploratory study of patient experiences. Patient Exp J. 2015;2(1):148-154.
  2. Zhang Z, Citardi D, Xing A, et al. Patient Challenges and Needs in Comprehending Laboratory Test Results: Mixed Methods Study. J Med Internet Res. 2020;22(12):e18725.
  3. Steitz BD, Turer RW, Lin CT, et al. Perspectives of Patients About Immediate Access to Test Results Through an Online Patient Portal. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(3):e233572.
  4. Fraccaro P, Vigo M, Balatsoukas P, et al. Presentation of laboratory test results in patient portals: influence of interface design on risk interpretation and visual search behaviour. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2018;18:11.
  5. van der Mee FAM, Schaper F, Jansen J, et al. Enhancing Patient Understanding of Laboratory Test Results: Systematic Review of Presentation Formats and Their Impact on Perception, Decision, Action, and Memory. J Med Internet Res. 2024;26:e53993.
  6. Torsvik T, Lillebo B, Hertzum M. How Do Experienced Physicians Access and Evaluate Laboratory Test Results for the Chronic Patient? A Qualitative Analysis. Appl Clin Inform. 2018;9(2):403-410.
  7. Lustria MLA, Aliche O, Killian MO, et al. Enhancing patient engagement and understanding: is providing direct access to laboratory results through patient portals adequate? JAMIA Open. 2025;8(2):ooaf009.
  8. Cadamuro J, Cabitza F, Debeljak Z, et al. Potentials and pitfalls of ChatGPT and natural-language artificial intelligence models for the understanding of laboratory medicine test results. Clin Chem Lab Med. 2023;61(7):1158-1166.
  9. Ojeda Meixueiro VH, Perez-Campos Mayoral L, Hernandez Huerta MT, et al. Relevance of a Customized Version of ChatGPT Explaining Laboratory Test Results in Patient Education. J Med Educ Curric Dev. 2024;11:23821205241260239.
  10. Habibullah M, Jemmieh K, Ouda A, et al. Metabolic-associated fatty liver disease: a selective review of pathogenesis, diagnostic approaches, and therapeutic strategies. Front Med (Lausanne). 2024;11:1291501.
  11. Scherer AM, Witteman HO, Solomon J, et al. Improving the Understanding of Test Results by Substituting (Not Adding) Goal Ranges: Web-Based Between-Subjects Experiment. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(10):e11027.
  12. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Scherer AM, et al. Effect of Harm Anchors in Visual Displays of Test Results on Patient Perceptions of Urgency About Near-Normal Values: Experimental Study. J Med Internet Res. 2018;20(3):e98.
  13. Wong KKL, Han Y, Cai Y, et al. From Trust in Automation to Trust in AI in Healthcare: A 30-Year Longitudinal Review and an Interdisciplinary Framework. Bioengineering (Basel). 2025;12(10).
  14. Pillay TS. Increasing the Impact and Value of Laboratory Medicine Through Effective and AI-Assisted Communication. EJIFCC. 2025;36(1):12-25.
  15. Thayer JG, Franklin A, Miller JM, et al. A scoping review of rule-based clinical decision support malfunctions. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2024;31(10):2405-2413.

Tags

  • Clinical laboratory information systems
  • Patient portals
  • Consumer health informatics
  • Health communication
  • Clinical decision support systems

Version archive

VersionDateStatusChange
1.0August 31, 2026PublishedInitial public version of Working Paper 001.
Research and development only: This material is not medical advice and must not be used for medical decisions.