ArticleTurkish journal of medical sciences2025
A prospective study for the examination of peripheral blood smear samples in pediatric population using artificial intelligence.
Article in Turkish journal of medical sciences, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background/aim: Peripheral blood smear (PBS) and bone marrow aspiration are gold standards of manual microscopy diagnostics for blood cell disorders. Nowadays, data-driven artificial intelligence (AI) techniques open new perspectives in digital hematology. This study proposes an AI learning technique for the classification of blood cells over PBS samples while increasing the sensitivity and specificity rates of the experts as a decision support system of a prediagnostic tool. Materials and methods: The methodology of this study comprises three steps for the creation of an effective learning technique for blood cell disorders. First is the digitization of PBS samples in 100x optical-digital magnification using Mantiscope which is a cloud-based slide scanner system. The second is collection of pediatric hematology experts' annotations and the last one is data augmentation to increase the data variation and size. The data consists of 372 individuals, an approximate number of 12,000 annotated images with 500,000 blood cell objects. A subjective test is also performed to observe the interobserver variability. Results: We measured sensitivity and specificity for 28 cell types for the resulting decision support system. We obtained sensitivity 98% for myeloblast, 94% for basophil and 90% for lymphoblast, specificity 99% for basophil, eosinophil, monocyte, hypersegmented neutrophil, band neutrophil and reactive neutrophil in leukocyte subtypes. When erythrocyte measurements were evaluated, it was found that the sensitivity was 93% for normoblast, 81% for target cell and pencil cell, 80% for sickle cell, specificity was 99% for normoblast, pencil cell, echinocyte, and sickle cell. Conclusion: It is observed that sensitivity and specificity greater than 90% can be obtained for some specific cell types with this clinical study. It is seen that data augmentation increases the effectiveness of the learning method in terms of leukocytes by improving the measurement metrics. This could be a valuable technique to evaluate acute leukemias and hemolytic disorders.
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.