ArticleLeukemia2026
Artificial intelligence differentiates prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis with thrombocytosis from essential thrombocythemia using digitized bone marrow biopsy images.
Article in Leukemia, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Prefibrotic primary myelofibrosis (prePMF) and essential thrombocythemia (ET) are distinct myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) with overlapping clinical features, often leading to diagnostic uncertainty. We developed an artificial intelligence (AI) framework with human interpretability to distinguish prePMF from ET using digitized hematoxylin and eosin-stained bone marrow biopsy (BMB) slides. Trained on an initial cohort of MPN patients with thrombocytosis, the AI model achieved an AUROC of 0.89 and accuracy of 92.3%. To assess the image features guiding predictions, we generated synthetic images which potentially exaggerate disease-specific morphologies. In a blinded survey, hematopathologists reviewed both real and AI-generated images. While human experts frequently agreed with AI predictions on diagnosis with real images, diagnostic discordance reached up to 88% for AI-generated ET images despite being correctly predicted by AI. We further quantified marrow cellularity and adiposity in the real and generated images, which revealed a higher proportion of fat content in all ET images (42.0%) compared to prePMF (28.9%). These findings suggest that AI can utilize morphological cues distinct from current established diagnostic criteria, such as proportion of adiposity to distinguish types of MPNs. Thus, an AI-assisted diagnostic tool underscores the potential of AI to augment histopathologic evaluation and allow identification of more specific subpopulations of forms of MPNs.
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.