ArticleScientific reports2022
Evaluation of two semi-supervised learning methods and their combination for automatic classification of bone marrow cells.
Article in Scientific reports, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Next Generation Digital Morphology: Blast Preclassification in Bone Marrow Aspirates.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Review
- An AI-powered self-driving microscope for low-cost acute leukemia detection.Nature communications · 2026Article
- Deep learning in bone marrow cytomorphology: advances in segmentation, classification, and clinical translation.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- Models for the marrow: A comprehensive review of AI-based cell classification methods and malignancy detection in bone marrow aspirate smears.HemaSphere · 2024Review
- Recent advancements in machine learning for bone marrow cell morphology analysis.Frontiers in medicine · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
14 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Differential bone marrow (BM) cell counting is an important test for the diagnosis of various hematological diseases. However, it is difficult to accurately classify BM cells due to non-uniformity and the lack of reproducibility of differential counting. Therefore, automatic classification systems have been developed in which deep learning is used. These systems requires large and accurately labeled datasets for training. To overcome this, we used semi-supervised learning (SSL), in which learning proceeds while labeling. We used three methods: self-training (ST), active learning (AL), and a combination of these methods, and attempted to automatically classify 16 types of BM cell images. ST involves data verification, as in AL, before adding them to the training dataset (confirmed self-training: CST). After 25 rounds of CST, AL, and CST + AL, the initial number of training data increased from 425 to 40,518; 3682; and 47,843, respectively. Accuracies for the test data of 50 images for each cell type were 0.944, 0.941, and 0.976, respectively. Data added with CST or AL showed some imbalances between classes, while CST + AL exhibited fewer imbalances. We suggest that CST + AL, when combined with two SSL methods, is efficient in increasing training data for the development of automatic BM cells classification systems.
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.