Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41229356›Full record

ReviewBritish journal of haematology2026

Artificial intelligence for risk assessment and outcome prediction in malignant haematology.

Jan-Niklas Eckardt, Wencke Walter, Jan Moritz Middeke, Torsten Haferlach

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in British journal of haematology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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.

Jan-Niklas EckardtDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Wencke WalterMLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory, Munich, Germany.
Jan Moritz MiddekeDepartment of Internal Medicine I, University Hospital Carl Gustav Carus, TUD Dresden University of Technology, Dresden, Germany.
Torsten HaferlachMLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory, Munich, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Risk stratification is the backbone of clinical decision-making for patients with haematological malignancies. Models currently used in routine clinical practice often rely on static rules, conventional statistics and expert consensus. While pragmatic and accessible, these models fail to capture the complex biological interactions and patient heterogeneity, especially as data dimensionality grows given the availability of more comprehensive molecular analysis. Artificial intelligence (AI), particularly machine learning (ML), offers the potential to process such high-dimensional data, uncover latent patterns and provide dynamic, individualized risk predictions. In this review, we introduce haematologists to core concepts and limitations of AI-based risk stratification. We examine studies in myeloid and lymphoid neoplasms developing AI models that challenge current standard models and identify novel disease subtypes and risk markers. While these models offer unique potential for data-driven personalized decision support, several challenges remain to routine applicability such as training cohort composition, validation and bias mitigation highlighting an urgent need for interdisciplinary collaboration and dialogue with regulatory agencies to ensure robust and safe model deployment. As data dimensionality, digital infrastructure and regulatory frameworks evolve, AI-guided risk stratification is poised to complement and potentially reshape clinical practice in malignant haematology requiring haematologists to be aware of potential capabilities and pitfalls.

Indexed as

Artificial IntelligenceHematologic NeoplasmsClinical Decision-MakingHumansMachine LearningPrognosisRisk Assessmentartificial intelligencedeep learningmachine learningoutcome predictionrisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID41229356
PMCPMC12819104

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.