ArticleNPJ digital medicine2026
Evaluating AI in leukocyte classification: performance of the AI system against 15 morphology experts.
Article in NPJ digital medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. 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.
- Clinical Validation of the MC-80 Digital Morphology Analyzer in Leukocyte Classification: A Large-Scale Comparison With Manual Microscopy.International journal of laboratory hematology · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
17 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Artificial intelligence (AI)-based digital morphology analyzers are vital for clinical hematology but face critical challenges in identifying immature granulocytes and atypical cells. This study validated the MC-100i AI system against 15 morphologists, with an additional 3 senior experts establishing a gold standard, to assess performance gaps and clinical utility. A total of 104 blood smears containing 19,174 cells (9 abnormal types, including 3154 leukocytes and nucleated erythrocytes) were analyzed. The AI achieved an overall accuracy of 95.97% (ranked second) and 91.38% accuracy for the abnormal subsets (ranked fifth). Critical biases were identified: AI classified ambiguous cells (e.g., promyelocytes) as earlier developmental stages, while humans favored later stages. AI relied on isolated features for atypical cells, unlike experts who integrated smear context. These findings confirm the AI's robust clinical potential for routine leukocyte classification, and targeted optimizations will further enhance AI-driven peripheral blood cell identification for effective integration into clinical diagnostic workflows.
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.