ArticleScientific reports2026
Comprehensive performance assessment of the BMIA-12 a system for bone marrow cell quantification in normal and hematological malignancy samples.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. An erratum has been issued. 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.
- Next Generation Digital Morphology: Blast Preclassification in Bone Marrow Aspirates.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
- Erratum issued
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Manual bone marrow (BM) differential counting is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and prone to inter-observer variability. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems can standardize BM cytological assessments. This study evaluated the BMIA-12 A system (UIMD, Seoul, Korea) for automated BM cell recognition and differential counting. A total of 298 BM aspirate smears from 149 patients were analyzed, including normal controls (n = 50), multiple myeloma (n = 33), monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (n = 6), acute myeloid leukemia (AML; n = 40), acute promyelocytic leukemia (n = 4), and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL; n = 16). Three classification methods were compared: AI-automated, expert-reviewed AI, and manual microscopic counting. Both wedge and squash preparations were assessed. System performance was evaluated using recall, precision, F1-score, and accuracy. BMIA-12 A achieved accuracies of 94.6% (wedge) and 94.0% (squash), with recall > 90% for 14/16 cell types. Wedge preparations showed superior precision for key diagnostic cells, including plasma cells, blasts, and basophils. Strong correlations (r ≥ 0.9) were observed between AI-automated and expert-reviewed classifications for nine cell types. However, disease-specific quantification varied significantly by method, particularly for plasma cell and blast percentages. Inter-method discrepancies were pronounced in AML with NPM1 mutation and B-ALL with BCR::ABL1 fusion. Overall, BMIA-12 A provides robust classification for normal BM samples. Persistent inter-method differences highlight the need for further validation.
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.