ArticleCancer science2025
Diagnosis and typing of leukemia using a single peripheral blood cell through deep learning.
Article in Cancer science, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- AI-Based Prediction of Gene Expression in Single-Cell and Multiscale Genomics and Transcriptomics.International journal of molecular sciences · 2026Review
- A multi-scale feature fusion of deep learning network for classifying acute leukemia genetic subtypes from blood smear images.Discover oncology · 2026Article
- Predicting the Regulatory Dynamics of AML Disease Progression from Longitudinal Multi-Modal Clinical Data.Journal of medical systems · 2025Article
- A two stage blood cell detection and classification algorithm based on improved YOLOv7 and EfficientNetv2.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Acute Promyelocytic Leukemia: An Avenue of Opportunities? A Systematic Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Diagnosis and typing of leukemia using a single peripheral blood cell through deep learning.Cancer science · 2025Article
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
Abstract
Leukemia is highly heterogeneous, meaning that different types of leukemia require different treatments and have different prognoses. Current clinical diagnostic and typing tests are complex and time-consuming. In particular, all of these tests rely on bone marrow aspiration, which is invasive and leads to poor patient compliance, exacerbating treatment delays. Morphological analysis of peripheral blood cells (PBC) is still primarily used to distinguish between benign and malignant hematologic disorders, but it remains a challenge to diagnose and type these diseases solely by direct observation of peripheral blood(PB) smears by human experts. In this study, we apply a segmentation-based enhanced residual network that uses progressive multigranularity training with jigsaw patches. It is trained on a self-built annotated dataset of 21,208 images from 237 patients, including five types of benign white blood cells(WBCs) and eight types of leukemic cells. The network is not only able to discriminate between benign and malignant cells, but also to typify leukemia using a single peripheral blood cell. The network effectively differentiated acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL) from other types of acute myeloid leukemia (non-APL), achieving a precision rate of 89.34%, a recall rate of 97.37%, and an F1 score of 93.18% for APL. In contrast, for non-APL cases, the model achieved a precision rate of 92.86%, but a recall rate of 74.63% and an F1 score of 82.75%. In addition, the model discriminates acute lymphoblastic leukemia(ALL) with the Ph chromosome from those without. This approach could improve patient compliance and enable faster and more accurate typing of leukemias for early diagnosis and treatment to improve survival.
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.