ArticleBMC cancer2025
Development of a screening model for APL using cell population data and deep learning-extracted WBC scattergram features.
Article in BMC cancer, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- EfficientNet-B0-Based Screening of WBC-Diff Scattergram Images for Hematological Abnormalities.Cancer medicine · 2026Article
- Review
- Recent advances in deep learning for leukemia diagnosis: a scoping review of diagnostic modalities and fusion-based approaches.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
13 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAcute promyelocytic leukemia (APL), a high-risk subtype of acute myeloid leukemia, necessitates rapid diagnosis upon hospital admission to mitigate early mortality. Current diagnosing approaches relying on time-consuming genetic testing or morphological expertise are particularly challenging in resource-limited settings. Herein, this study introduces a novel machine learning approach leveraging routine lab data to enable immediate APL suspicion, offering a new diagnostic possibility for under-resourced hospitals.
methodsWe developed a two-stage machine learning model using multi-center retrospective data. The cohort included 94 confirmed APL patients (2020-2024) from three tertiary hospitals, with an external validation set (n = 541) from an independent center. Using four VGG-16 networks, we extracted APL-specific 3D scatterplot features from DIFF and WNB channels of routine blood tests. These features were then fed into an optimized random forest classifier-scatterplot (RFC-S) model, refined via recursive feature elimination and threshold tuning.
resultsThe RFC-S model achieved near-perfect discrimination, with an AUC of 0.9893 in the test set and 0.9979 in external validation. It maintained 98.15% sensitivity and 95.52% specificity-outperforming conventional methods. SHAP analysis confirmed that key scattergram-derived features (e.g., N_APL_Ratio_YZ) drove predictions. Critically, the model requires no additional tests, making it deployable even in low-resource clinics.
conclusionsThe RFC-S model represents an innovative approach to APL screening by combining deep learning-derived scattergram features with routine blood parameters. This two-stage methodology achieves high diagnostic accuracy (AUC > 0.98) while maintaining computational efficiency. Importantly, the model's ability to utilize existing laboratory data without requiring additional tests makes it particularly valuable for resource-constrained settings where access to genetic testing or hematological expertise may be limited. Our findings suggest this approach could serve as a practical tool for early APL identification, potentially reducing diagnostic delays in diverse clinical environments.
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.