ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2025
An interpretable machine learning model for predicting bone marrow invasion in patients with lymphoma via
Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
- An interpretable PET/CT-based radiomic-clinical model for predicting bone marrow involvement in follicular lymphoma: comparison of pelvic and spine-pelvis VOI frameworks.European journal of nuclear medicine and molecular imaging · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeAccurate identification of bone marrow invasion (BMI) is critical for determining the prognosis of and treatment strategies for lymphoma. Although bone marrow biopsy (BMB) is the current gold standard, its invasive nature and sampling errors highlight the necessity for noninvasive alternatives. We aimed to develop and validate an interpretable machine learning model that integrates clinical data,
methodsWe included 159 newly diagnosed lymphoma patients (118 from Center I and 41 from Center II), excluding those with prior treatments, incomplete data, or under 18 years of age. Data from Center I were randomly allocated to training (n = 94) and internal test (n = 24) sets; Center II served as an external validation set (n = 41). Clinical parameters, PET/CT features, radiomic characteristics, and deep learning features were comprehensively analyzed and integrated into machine learning models. Model interpretability was elucidated via Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAPs). Additionally, a comparative diagnostic study evaluated reader performance with and without model assistance.
resultsBMI was confirmed in 70 (44%) patients. The key clinical predictors included B symptoms and platelet count. Among the tested models, the ExtraTrees classifier achieved the best performance. For external validation, the combined model (clinical + PET/CT + radiomics + deep learning) achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 0.886, outperforming models that use only clinical (AUC 0.798), radiomic (AUC 0.708), or deep learning features (AUC 0.662). SHAP analysis revealed that PET radiomic features (especially PET_lbp_3D_m1_glcm_DependenceEntropy), platelet count, and B symptoms were significant predictors of BMI. Model assistance significantly enhanced junior reader performance (AUC improved from 0.663 to 0.818, p = 0.03) and improved senior reader accuracy, although not significantly (AUC 0.768 to 0.867, p = 0.10).
conclusionOur interpretable machine learning model, which integrates clinical, imaging, radiomic, and deep learning features, demonstrated robust BMI prediction performance and notably enhanced physician diagnostic accuracy. These findings underscore the clinical potential of interpretable AI to complement medical expertise and potentially reduce the reliance on invasive BMB for lymphoma staging.
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.