ReviewAfrican journal of laboratory medicine2026
Artificial intelligence in haematology laboratory diagnosis: Current applications, challenges, and future directions.
Review in African journal of laboratory medicine, 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
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming haematology diagnostics by improving accuracy, efficiency, and reproducibility in workflows traditionally reliant on manual microscopy and expert interpretation. Integrating AI into laboratory medicine presents opportunities to enhance diagnostic precision and reduce variability, particularly in resource-limited settings. Aim: This narrative review examines the application of AI across major domains of haematology, morphological diagnosis, flow cytometry, cytogenetics, genomics, and clinical decision support, while addressing ethical, regulatory, and economic considerations relevant to global and African laboratory contexts. Methods: A comprehensive literature search of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and EMBASE identified studies describing or evaluating AI algorithms in haematologic diagnostics, focusing on model performance, validation level, and clinical applicability. Results: Recent studies demonstrate strong performance of deep learning models, particularly convolutional neural networks and hybrid convolutional neural networks-transformer architectures, in automating blood and bone marrow morphology, detecting subtle dysplastic changes, and supporting digital workflows. In flow cytometry, AI enhances automated gating and rare event detection, while cytogenetic and genomic tools aid in karyotyping, variant classification, and structural abnormality recognition. Decision-support systems further assist in diagnostic triage and treatment planning. However, widespread implementation is limited by data heterogeneity, inadequate multicentre validation, and evolving ethical and regulatory frameworks. Conclusion: Advancing AI integration in haematology will require robust validation studies, explainable AI approaches, and equitable adoption strategies. Strengthening African laboratory systems through such innovations offers a pathway toward improved diagnostic capacity and sustainable digital transformation. What this study adds: The current study highlighted that AI is improving haematology laboratory tasks such as cell identification, differential diagnosis assistance, and result interpretation, but still faces challenges in validation, bias, and workflow integration. Future progress depends on stronger external validation, better explainable models, and closer collaboration between laboratory experts and AI specialists.
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.