ArticleCancers2024
Development of an Artificial-Intelligence-Based Tool for Automated Assessment of Cellularity in Bone Marrow Biopsies in Ph-Negative Myeloproliferative Neoplasms.
Article in Cancers, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Development of an automated artificial intelligence-based tool for reticulin fibrosis assessment in bone marrow biopsies.Virchows Archiv : an international journal of pathology · 2026Article
- Digital Pathology in Hematopathology: From Vision to Deployment.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence in small tissue biopsies: diagnostic applications, histochemical integration, and methodological challenges in surgical pathology.Histochemistry and cell biology · 2026Review
- Advancements in bone marrow biopsy: the role of omics and artificial intelligence in hematologic diagnostics.Frontiers in medicine · 2026Review
- Deep learning in bone marrow cytomorphology: advances in segmentation, classification, and clinical translation.Medical oncology (Northwood, London, England) · 2025Review
- Artificial intelligence-based quantitative bone marrow pathology analysis for myeloproliferative neoplasms.Haematologica · 2025Article
- Predicting modelling for early diagnosis in early myeloproliferative neoplasms, not otherwise specified. Evidence from a machine learning study.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Article
- Application of Digital Analysis for Assessment of Coronary Sub-Occlusions in Autopsy Pathology: It Is Time to Move beyond Histology Alone.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The cellularity assessment in bone marrow biopsies (BMBs) for the diagnosis of Philadelphia chromosome (Ph)-negative myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) is a key diagnostic feature and is usually performed by the human eyes through an optical microscope with consequent inter-observer and intra-observer variability. Thus, the use of an automated tool may reduce variability, improving the uniformity of the evaluation. The aim of this work is to develop an accurate AI-based tool for the automated quantification of cellularity in BMB histology. A total of 55 BMB histological slides, diagnosed as Ph- MPN between January 2018 and June 2023 from the archives of the Pathology Unit of University "Luigi Vanvitelli" in Naples (Italy), were scanned on Ventana DP200 or Epredia P1000 and exported as whole-slide images (WSIs). Fifteen BMBs were randomly selected to obtain a training set of AI-based tools. An expert pathologist and a trained resident performed annotations of hematopoietic tissue and adipose tissue, and annotations were exported as .tiff images and .png labels with two colors (black for hematopoietic tissue and yellow for adipose tissue). Subsequently, we developed a semantic segmentation model for hematopoietic tissue and adipose tissue. The remaining 40 BMBs were used for model verification. The performance of our model was compared with an evaluation of the cellularity of five expert hematopathologists and three trainees; we obtained an optimal concordance between our model and the expert pathologists' evaluation, with poorer concordance for trainees. There were no significant differences in cellularity assessments between two different scanners.
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.