ArticleDigital health
Classification of hematologic malignancies from whole-slide bone marrow aspirates using a two-stage deep convolutional neural network pipeline.
Article in Digital health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objectives: Morphologic information from bone marrow (BM) examinations remains critical for diagnosing leukemia and lymphoma, yet manual interpretation of BM smear slides is labor-intensive for hematologists and pathologists. Few automatic diagnostic tools have successfully classified whole slide images (WSIs) of hematologic malignancies. This study aimed to develop a deep convolutional neural network (DCNN) pipeline to classify leukemia subtypes and lymphoma using whole-slide BM aspirate images. Methods: The process involved two stages: first, a quality assessment model selected 200 regions of interest (ROIs) from each WSI to exclude non-informative areas. Next, eight DCNN models with different architectures were trained to classify each ROI into one of five hematologic malignancies, and tile-level predictions were aggregated to produce patient-level results. External evaluation and ancillary analyses were performed to demonstrate generalizability and robustness. Results: In total, 1,022 WSIs were enrolled. The results showed average patient-level accuracy, balanced accuracy, F1-score, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) of 95.2%, 94.7%, 94.8%, and 0.993, respectively, with DenseNet121 achieving the highest balanced accuracy (97.6%). Our method outperformed clustering-constrained attention multiple instance learning (CLAM) in comparison study (accuracy 97.1% vs. 85.0%) and reached accuracies of 83.8% and 86.7% on external datasets. Visualization maps showed consistency between model salience and cell distribution. Conclusion: Our results demonstrate the ability of DCNNs to achieve accurate diagnosis in hematologic pathology, and the pipeline holds potential to assist in early diagnosis and workflow augmentation for hematologists and pathologists.
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.