ArticleInternational journal of laboratory hematology2026
Assessment of the Performance of Siemens Scopio Digital Morphology on Bone Marrow Aspirates in Onco-Hematology.
Article in International journal of laboratory hematology, 2026. 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
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesDigital morphology (DM) systems assisted by artificial intelligence are increasingly being introduced into hematology laboratories; however, data on their performance in routine clinical practice for bone marrow aspirates (BMA) remain limited. We evaluated the automated pre-classification generated by a full-field DM system in a large series of BMA samples from patients with onco-hematological disorders.
methodsWe analyzed 350 BMA samples during routine diagnostic activity; they were evaluated using the Siemens Scopio X100 HT system. Automated results were compared with conventional optical microscopy (OM), which served as the reference method for bone marrow differential counts. Results obtained in pre-classification and post-classification were analyzed separately across major cellular lineages and clinically relevant blast thresholds.
resultsSixteen markedly hypercellular samples could not be quantitatively evaluated. In the 334 evaluable BMA samples, the granulocytic series showed very strong correlation between DM and OM at pre-classification (r = 0.85, 95% CI 0.82-0.88), with further improvement after post-classification (r = 0.93, 95% CI 0.91-0.94). Erythroblast percentage showed strong correlation at pre-classification (r = 0.78, 95% CI 0.74-0.82) and very strong correlation after post-classification (r = 0.93, 95% CI 0.92-0.95). Lymphocyte percentage showed moderate correlation at pre-classification (r = 0.55, 95% CI 0.47-0.62) and strong correlation after post-classification (r = 0.78, 95% CI 0.73-0.82). Blast percentage showed strong correlation overall at pre-classification (r = 0.73, 95% CI 0.67-0.77), with very strong correlation in samples with < 5% blasts (r = 0.91, 95% CI 0.88-0.93), but lower correlation in samples with > 5% blasts (r = 0.59, 95% CI 0.48-0.68), improving after post-classification (r = 0.84, 95% CI 0.78-0.88). Low-frequency cell populations and challenging hypercellular smears remained more problematic and required expert morphologic review.
conclusionsIn routine BMA evaluation, the Scopio DM system provided good overall performance for the major marrow lineages, with clear improvement after expert post-classification. Its main value lies in supporting a supervised diagnostic workflow rather than replacing expert microscopic assessment, particularly in challenging samples and in low-frequency or morphologically heterogeneous cell populations.
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.