ReviewInternational journal of laboratory hematology2026
Next Generation Digital Morphology: Blast Preclassification in Bone Marrow Aspirates.
Review 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionMorphologic evaluation of peripheral blood (PB) smears and bone marrow aspirates (BMA) remains central to the diagnosis of acute leukemias, particularly for the identification and quantification of blasts. However, this process is time-consuming, operator-dependent, and subject to inter-observer variability. Recent advances in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly deep learning, have enabled the development of automated systems for leukocyte classification and blast detection.
methodsWe performed a narrative review of the literature on AI-based approaches for morphologic evaluation in hematology, focusing on blast recognition and leukemia screening. Both classical machine learning and deep learning methodologies were analyzed, along with their application to PB smears and BMA samples. In addition, currently available commercial digital morphology platforms were reviewed with respect to their performance in blast detection.
resultsClassical machine learning approaches demonstrated good performance on maturing cells of most lineages, and moderate performance in blast recognition, limited by reliance on manually selected features. Deep learning models, particularly convolutional neural networks, achieved improved accuracy and near-human performance in PB smear analysis, with reported sensitivities and specificities often exceeding 90% for blast detection. However, performance in BMA analysis remains more variable due to increased cellular complexity. Commercial platforms show high concordance with manual microscopy for mature leukocyte classification, but more modest accuracy for immature and neoplastic cells, including blasts.
conclusionAI-based digital morphology systems are promising tools for supporting morphologic evaluation in hematology laboratories. While current platforms improve efficiency and standardization, limitations in blast detection accuracy and generalizability prevent their use as standalone diagnostic tools. Further development, including large-scale validation and improved model interpretability, will be essential for their integration into routine clinical practice. The International Council for Standardization in Haematology (ICSH) presently suggests prudence in the widespread clinical adoption of AI-driven bone marrow analysis systems, except within environments that are properly validated, approved by regulatory authorities, and supported by rigorous quality assurance measures. Their integration into routine practice will require broader validation, regulatory approval, and quality assurance frameworks.
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.