ArticleBlood2020
Machine learning demonstrates that somatic mutations imprint invariant morphologic features in myelodysplastic syndromes.
Article in Blood, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.
- Machine learning identifies the independent role of dysplasia in the prediction of response to chemotherapy in AML.Leukemia · 2022Trial
- TET2 as a Context-Dependent Epigenetic Integrator in Clonal Hematopoiesis, Inflammation, Cancer, and Immunotherapy.Cell biochemistry and function · 2026Review
- Reframing-renaming(?)-myelodysplastic syndromes/neoplasms and clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential.Leukemia · 2026Review
- Application of the International Working Group MDS molecular taxonomy classes to a single institution cohort.Blood neoplasia · 2025Article
- Article
- Untangling the loops ofLeukemia & lymphoma · 2025Review
- Application of Pathomic Features for Differentiating Dysplastic Cells in Patients with Myelodysplastic Syndrome.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Models for the marrow: A comprehensive review of AI-based cell classification methods and malignancy detection in bone marrow aspirate smears.HemaSphere · 2024Review
- Machine Learning Meets Cancer.Cancers · 2024Review
- A machine learning tool for the diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection from hemogram parameters.Journal of cellular and molecular medicine · 2023Article
- Integrated Genomic and Transcriptomic Analysis Improves Disease Classification and Risk Stratification of MDS with Ring Sideroblasts.Clinical cancer research : an official journal of the American Association for Cancer Research · 2023Article
- The clinicopathologic significance of NPM1 mutation and ability to detect mutated NPM1 by immunohistochemistry in non-AML myeloid neoplasms.Genes, chromosomes & cancer · 2023Article
- Artificial intelligence to empower diagnosis of myelodysplastic syndromes by multiparametric flow cytometry.Haematologica · 2023Article
- Computational analysis of peripheral blood smears detects disease-associated cytomorphologies.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Leukemia relapse via genetic immune escape after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Molecular patterns identify distinct subclasses of myeloid neoplasia.Nature communications · 2023Article
- Article
- Article
- Leukemia relapse via genetic immune escape after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation.Research square · 2023Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
13 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Morphologic interpretation is the standard in diagnosing myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS), but it has limitations, such as varying reliability in pathologic evaluation and lack of integration with genetic data. Somatic events shape morphologic features, but the complexity of morphologic and genetic changes makes clear associations challenging. This article interrogates novel clinical subtypes of MDS using a machine-learning technique devised to identify patterns of cooccurrence among morphologic features and genomic events. We sequenced 1079 MDS patients and analyzed bone marrow morphologic alterations and other clinical features. A total of 1929 somatic mutations were identified. Five distinct morphologic profiles with unique clinical characteristics were defined. Seventy-seven percent of higher-risk patients clustered in profile 1. All lower-risk (LR) patients clustered into the remaining 4 profiles: profile 2 was characterized by pancytopenia, profile 3 by monocytosis, profile 4 by elevated megakaryocytes, and profile 5 by erythroid dysplasia. These profiles could also separate patients with different prognoses. LR MDS patients were classified into 8 genetic signatures (eg, signature A had TET2 mutations, signature B had both TET2 and SRSF2 mutations, and signature G had SF3B1 mutations), demonstrating association with specific morphologic profiles. Six morphologic profiles/genetic signature associations were confirmed in a separate analysis of an independent cohort. Our study demonstrates that nonrandom or even pathognomonic relationships between morphology and genotype to define clinical features can be identified. This is the first comprehensive implementation of machine-learning algorithms to elucidate potential intrinsic interdependencies among genetic lesions, morphologies, and clinical prognostic in attributes of MDS.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.