ReviewTheScientificWorldJournal2025
Advancements in Hematologic Malignancy Detection: A Comprehensive Survey of Methodologies and Emerging Trends.
Review in TheScientificWorldJournal, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The investigation and diagnosis of hematologic malignancy using blood cell image analysis are major and emerging subjects that lie at the intersection of artificial intelligence and medical research. This survey systematically examines the state-of-the-art in blood cancer detection through image-based analysis, aimed at identifying the most effective computational strategies and highlighting emerging trends. This review focuses on three principal objectives, namely, to categorize and compare traditional machine learning (ML), deep learning (DL), and hybrid learning approaches; to evaluate performance metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, and area under the ROC curve; and to identify methodological gaps and propose directions for future research. Methodologically, we organize the literature by categorizing the malignancy types-leukemia, lymphoma, and multiple myeloma-and particularizing the preprocessing steps, feature extraction techniques, network architectures, and ensemble strategies employed. For ML methods, we discuss classical classifiers including support vector machines and random forests; for DL, we analyze convolutional neural networks (e.g., AlexNet, VGG, and ResNet) and transformer-based models; and for hybrid systems, we examine combinations of CNNs with attention mechanisms or traditional classifiers. Our synthesis reveals that DL models consistently outperform ML baselines, achieving classification accuracies above 95% in benchmark datasets, with hybrid models pushing peak accuracy to 99.7%. However, challenges remain in data scarcity, class imbalance, and generalizability to clinical settings. We conclude by recommending the integration of multimodal data, semisupervised learning, and rigorous external validation to advance toward deployable diagnostic tools. This survey also provides a comprehensive roadmap for researchers and clinicians striving to harness AI for reliable hematologic cancer detection.
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.