Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29681996›Full record

ReviewComputational and mathematical methods in medicine2018

Computer-Aided Diagnosis of Acute Lymphoblastic Leukaemia.

Sarmad Shafique, Samabia Tehsin

Open access · hybridAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Computational and mathematical methods in medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.9field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
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

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 56 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
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

2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Sarmad ShafiqueDepartment of Computer Science, Bahria University, Islamabad, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0002-7213-6447
Samabia TehsinDepartment of Computer Science, Bahria University, Islamabad, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0003-0761-0752
Bahria University · PK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Leukaemia is a form of blood cancer which affects the white blood cells and damages the bone marrow. Usually complete blood count (CBC) and bone marrow aspiration are used to diagnose the acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. It can be a fatal disease if not diagnosed at the earlier stage. In practice, manual microscopic evaluation of stained sample slide is used for diagnosis of leukaemia. But manual diagnostic methods are time-consuming, less accurate, and prone to errors due to various human factors like stress, fatigue, and so forth. Therefore, different automated systems have been proposed to wrestle the glitches in the manual diagnostic methods. In recent past, some computer-aided leukaemia diagnosis methods are presented. These automated systems are fast, reliable, and accurate as compared to manual diagnosis methods. This paper presents review of computer-aided diagnosis systems regarding their methodologies that include enhancement, segmentation, feature extraction, classification, and accuracy.

Indexed as

AlgorithmsBayes TheoremCluster AnalysisComputational BiologyDiagnosis, Computer-AssistedFractalsFuzzy LogicHumansImage Interpretation, Computer-AssistedLymphocytesModels, StatisticalNeural Networks, ComputerPattern Recognition, AutomatedPrecursor Cell Lymphoblastic Leukemia-LymphomaSupport Vector Machine

Identifiers

PMID29681996
PMCPMC5851334
OpenAlexW2794206575

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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 OpenQuestion graph.