ArticleHemaSphere2023
Machine Learning Improves Risk Stratification in Myelodysplastic Neoplasms: An Analysis of the Spanish Group of Myelodysplastic Syndromes.
Article in HemaSphere, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Toward integrated multimodal artificial intelligence in bone marrow examination: current state and open challenges.Blood research · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence reshaping the paradigm of hematologic malignancy diagnosis and treatment: From static assessment to dynamic precision management.Annals of hematology · 2026Review
- Evaluating the patterns of use and safety of lenalidomide treatment in myelodysplastic syndromes: a European, observational multi-registry study.Therapeutic advances in drug safety · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence for risk assessment and outcome prediction in malignant haematology.British journal of haematology · 2026Review
- Dynamic Mortality Risk Prediction in Myelodysplastic Syndromes Using Longitudinal Clinical Data.JCO clinical cancer informatics · 2025Article
- Comparison of prognostication by IPSS-M, IPSS-R and AIPSS-MDS in the context of limited availability of molecular data in daily clinical practice.Annals of hematology · 2025Article
- Progress in the Genetics of Myelodysplastic Syndromes with a Latin American Perspective.Genes · 2025Review
- The Applications of Machine Learning in the Management of Patients Undergoing Stem Cell Transplantation: Are We Ready?Cancers · 2025Review
- Assessing the Relevance of Non-molecular Prognostic Systems for Myelodysplastic Syndrome in the Era of Next-Generation Sequencing.Annals of laboratory medicine · 2025Article
- Prognostic Significance and Treatment Response Associations of Genetic Mutations in Chronic Myelomonocytic Leukemia: A Retrospective Cohort Study.Biomedicines · 2024Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 18 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) are a heterogeneous group of hematological stem cell disorders characterized by dysplasia, cytopenias, and increased risk of acute leukemia. As prognosis differs widely between patients, and treatment options vary from observation to allogeneic stem cell transplantation, accurate and precise disease risk prognostication is critical for decision making. With this aim, we retrieved registry data from MDS patients from 90 Spanish institutions. A total of 7202 patients were included, which were divided into a training (80%) and a test (20%) set. A machine learning technique (random survival forests) was used to model overall survival (OS) and leukemia-free survival (LFS). The optimal model was based on 8 variables (age, gender, hemoglobin, leukocyte count, platelet count, neutrophil percentage, bone marrow blast, and cytogenetic risk group). This model achieved high accuracy in predicting OS (c-indexes; 0.759 and 0.776) and LFS (c-indexes; 0.812 and 0.845). Importantly, the model was superior to the revised International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS-R) and the age-adjusted IPSS-R. This difference persisted in different age ranges and in all evaluated disease subgroups. Finally, we validated our results in an external cohort, confirming the superiority of the Artificial Intelligence Prognostic Scoring System for MDS (AIPSS-MDS) over the IPSS-R, and achieving a similar performance as the molecular IPSS. In conclusion, the AIPSS-MDS score is a new prognostic model based exclusively on traditional clinical, hematological, and cytogenetic variables. AIPSS-MDS has a high prognostic accuracy in predicting survival in MDS patients, outperforming other well-established risk-scoring systems.
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.