ReviewBritish journal of haematology2026
Artificial intelligence for risk assessment and outcome prediction in malignant haematology.
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.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Putting the I in AML: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Cells · 2026Review
- Deep learning differentiates myeloproliferative neoplasms and predicts JAK2 and CALR mutations from bone marrow smears.Annals of hematology · 2026Article
- The Current Role of Physiotherapy in Systemic Light-Chain (AL) Amyloidosis and Multiple Myeloma.Life (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence for risk assessment and outcome prediction in malignant haematology.British journal of haematology · 2026Review
- Artificial intelligence-based miRNA analysis for precision oncology: diagnostic and prognostic insights.Frontiers in molecular biosciences · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.