ArticleResearch and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis2026
Artificial intelligence prediction of therapy response in newly diagnosed adult severe primary immune thrombocytopenia.
Article in Research and practice in thrombosis and haemostasis, 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
18 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Newly diagnosed severe primary immune thrombocytopenia (ITP) with a platelet count of ≤10 × 10 Objectives: Using early kinetics of complete blood counts (CBC) to predict time interval to confirmed response in newly diagnosed severe primary ITP in adults. Methods: We used a training cohort of 85 adults with newly diagnosed severe primary ITP to develop an artificial intelligence model predicting confirmed response. The model used CBC values over the initial 5 days of therapy to classify subjects into 3 strata: high-confidence fast response, lower-confidence fast response, and slow/no response. We validated the model in an independent cohort of 59 subjects. Results: Concordance between the model-computed risk stratification and time to confirmed response is 0.78 (95% CI, 0.73, 0.82) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.72, 0.83) in the training and validation cohorts, respectively. SHapley Additive exPlanations analyses indicated that the most informative covariates are age and kinetics of platelet count, mean red blood cell (RBC) volume, immature platelet fraction, standard deviation of RBC distribution width, mean RBC hemoglobin concentration, and immature reticulocyte percentage during days 3-5 of therapy. Conclusion: Our study should be treated as hypothesis-generating. Early dynamic patterns of CBC values might be used by artificial intelligence to predict the likelihood and speed of reaching confirmed response in adults with newly diagnosed severe primary ITP and might assist decision on timely therapy adjustment. Prospective testing and independent validation in non-Chinese cohorts and cohorts treated with different paradigms are needed.
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.