Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34073699›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical medicine2021

Classification of Monocytes, Promonocytes and Monoblasts Using Deep Neural Network Models: An Area of Unmet Need in Diagnostic Hematopathology.

Mazen Osman, Zeynettin Akkus, Dragan Jevremovic, Phuong L Nguyen, Dana Roh, Aref Al-Kali, Mrinal M Patnaik, Ahmad Nanaa, Samia Rizk, Mohamed E Salama

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical medicine, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Short histological kaleidoscope - recent findings in histology. Part III.Romanian journal of morphology and embryology = Revue roumaine de morphologie et embryologie
    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

10 authors.

Mazen OsmanDivision of Anatomic and Clinical Pathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Zeynettin AkkusDivision of Cardiovascular Diseases, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-3920-1515
Dragan JevremovicDivision of Hematopathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Phuong L NguyenDivision of Hematopathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Dana RohDivision of Hematopathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Aref Al-KaliDivision of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Mrinal M PatnaikDivision of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.
Ahmad NanaaDivision of Hematology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5247-5065
Samia RizkDepartment of Clinical Pathology, Cairo University, 11562 Cairo, Egypt.
Mohamed E SalamaDivision of Hematopathology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN 55905, USA.

Funding

Mayo Clinic HEMERSCH42626
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The accurate diagnosis of chronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) subtypes with monocytic differentiation relies on the proper identification and quantitation of blast cells and blast-equivalent cells, including promonocytes. This distinction can be quite challenging given the cytomorphologic and immunophenotypic similarities among the monocytic cell precursors. The aim of this study was to assess the performance of convolutional neural networks (CNN) in separating monocytes from their precursors (i.e., promonocytes and monoblasts). We collected digital images of 935 monocytic cells that were blindly reviewed by five experienced morphologists and assigned into three subtypes: monocyte, promonocyte, and blast. The consensus between reviewers was considered as a ground truth reference label for each cell. In order to assess the performance of CNN models, we divided our data into training (70%), validation (10%), and test (20%) datasets, as well as applied fivefold cross validation. The CNN models did not perform well for predicting three monocytic subtypes, but their performance was significantly improved for two subtypes (monocyte vs. promonocytes + blasts). Our findings (1) support the concept that morphologic distinction between monocytic cells of various differentiation level is difficult; (2) suggest that combining blasts and promonocytes into a single category is desirable for improved accuracy; and (3) show that CNN models can reach accuracy comparable to human reviewers (0.78 ± 0.10 vs. 0.86 ± 0.05). As far as we know, this is the first study to separate monocytes from their precursors using CNN.

Indexed as

artificial intelligencechronic myelomonocytic leukemia (CMML) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) for acute monoblastic leukemia and acute monocytic leukemiaconcordance between hematopathologistsdigital imagingimproving diagnosis accuracymonocytespromonocytes and monoblasts

Identifiers

PMID34073699
PMCPMC8197234

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.