[p_ing]

> Are you saying that the doctor failed to take action on something that was at a concerning level on her labs? Or that she should have scanned her labs for anything that was on the edges of those normal ranges?

From the post that her doctor hadn't yet reviewed the labs and the turn around time for the doctor was 2 - 3 days. I'm naturally curious about my own results so I do look at them and search the WWW for the meaning of the results if the lab tech doesn't provide any contextual clues. If WebMD says I have Lupis and I'm going to die tomorrow, then I'll reach out to my doctor in some form or fashion.

> simple blood work can be kind of a large amount of data now that's not immediately recognizable to the average person.

You'll find every [common] blood test has descriptors on the Intertubes from a variety of sources. Insurance, in the US anyway, isn't going to allow niche complex tests without going through weeks of denials. And even when doing standard blood workup, you're not going to need to know the items in the green, just the one or two out of range.

You're of course free to allow AI to invade your medical records as you see fit if that is the way you want to go about it. My point above was that "AI" wasn't necessary nor revolutionary in respect to identifying the author's medical issue.