ArticleNature machine intelligence2025
Deep generative classification of blood cell morphology.
Article in Nature machine intelligence, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 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
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- The benchmark illusion: on the curious underestimation of AI and the uncertainty of its creators' gold standards.EClinicalMedicine · 2026Review
- Putting the I in AML: Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Acute Myeloid Leukemia.Cells · 2026Review
- XHIC-Net: An Explainable Hybrid Involution-Convolution Network for Blood Smear Cell Morphology Classification.Bioengineering (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- [Artificial intelligence-assisted diagnostics in the pathology of internal and oncological diseases].Innere Medizin (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2026Review
- The limits of debiased clinical language models for cross-hospital generalization.Scientific reports · 2026Article
- Recent advances in deep learning for leukemia diagnosis: a scoping review of diagnostic modalities and fusion-based approaches.Frontiers in digital health · 2026Review
- Blood Mechanical Intelligence: From Force Sensing to Precision Mechanomedicine.Research (Washington, D.C.) · 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
21 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Blood cell morphology assessment via light microscopy constitutes a cornerstone of haematological diagnostics, providing crucial insights into diverse pathological conditions. This complex task demands expert interpretation owing to subtle morphological variations, biological heterogeneity and technical imaging factors that obstruct automated approaches. Conventional machine learning methods using discriminative models struggle with domain shifts, intraclass variability and rare morphological variants, constraining their clinical utility. We introduce CytoDiffusion, a diffusion-based generative classifier that faithfully models the distribution of blood cell morphology, combining accurate classification with robust anomaly detection, resistance to distributional shifts, interpretability, data efficiency and uncertainty quantification that surpasses clinical experts. Our approach outperforms state-of-the-art discriminative models in anomaly detection (area under the curve, 0.990 versus 0.916), resistance to domain shifts (0.854 versus 0.738 accuracy) and performance in low-data regimes (0.962 versus 0.924 balanced accuracy). In particular, CytoDiffusion generates synthetic blood cell images that expert haematologists cannot distinguish from real ones (accuracy, 0.523; 95% confidence interval: [0.505, 0.542]), demonstrating good command of the underlying distribution. Furthermore, we enhance model explainability through directly interpretable counterfactual heat maps. Our comprehensive evaluation framework establishes a multidimensional benchmark for medical image analysis in haematology, ultimately enabling improved diagnostic accuracy in clinical settings.
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.