Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40400510›Full record

ReviewHemaSphere2025

Applications of machine learning for immunophenotypic measurable residual disease assessment in acute myeloid leukemia.

Tim R Mocking, Arjan A van de Loosdrecht, Jacqueline Cloos, Costa Bachas

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in HemaSphere, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Review
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tim R MockingDepartment of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0001-9170-4131
Arjan A van de LoosdrechtDepartment of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8311-983X
Jacqueline CloosDepartment of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9150-8026
Costa BachasDepartment of Hematology, Amsterdam UMC Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam Amsterdam The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5983-6193

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Immunophenotypic detection and quantification of residual leukemic cells by multiparameter flow cytometry is increasingly adopted in the clinical practice of acute myeloid leukemia (AML) to assess measurable residual disease (MRD). However, MRD levels quantified by manual gating analysis can differ based on differences in gating strategy between trained operators and clinical centers. Manual gating requires extensive training, is time-consuming in daily practice, and faces a significant hurdle in analyzing data from next-generation cytometry platforms. To address these challenges, several computational approaches involving machine learning and artificial intelligence algorithms have been proposed to automate or aid the assessment of MRD. However, the immunophenotypic variability between patients and the relatively low proportions of residual leukemic cells in AML challenge most algorithms and require innovative approaches. This review provides an overview of recent efforts in using computational methods for immunophenotypic AML-MRD assessment. We first explain the technical and conceptual background of the different algorithms that have been explored. Next, we discuss their strengths and limitations in the disease-specific context of AML. Finally, we highlight how computational approaches offer a unique opportunity to standardize or even outperform current manual gating analyses, and ultimately, improve the treatment of AML patients.

Identifiers

PMID40400510
PMCPMC12093103

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.