Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42870939›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in oncology2026

Multicenter validation of an explainable machine-learning model for APL, AMoL, and ALL.

Xuanxuan Wang, Lixiang Ma, Zhongxin Wang, Wei Huang, Mengyu Zhang, Yuanyuan Hu

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in oncology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Xuanxuan Wang *Department of Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui, China.
Lixiang Ma *Department of Clinical Laboratory, The Affiliated Guangdong Second Provincial General Hospital of Jinan University, Guangzhou, Guangdong, China.
Zhongxin WangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui, China.
Wei HuangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Tongling People's Hospital, Tongling, Anhui, China.
Mengyu ZhangDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, Wanbei Coal Electric Group General Hospital, Suzhou, Anhui, China.
Yuanyuan HuDepartment of Clinical Laboratory, The First Affiliated Hospital of Anhui Medical University, Hefei, Anhui, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Acute leukemias require rapid subtype identification to guide timely treatment. Differentiation of acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL), acute monocytic leukemia (AMoL/M5), and acute promyelocytic leukemia (APL/M3) often relies on specialized tests that may not be immediately available. This study evaluated differentiation only among patients already confirmed to have one of these three diagnoses, rather than screening an unselected population with suspected acute leukemia. Methods: This multicenter retrospective study included 9,398 newly diagnosed, previously untreated patients with established APL/M3, AMoL/M5, or ALL between May 2019 and May 2025 at four tertiary hospitals in China. Relapse, remission, follow-up, and non-initial disease episodes were excluded. Twenty-four routine hematological parameters were evaluated. One center served as the development cohort with five-fold stratified cross-validation, while three independent centers were reserved for external validation. Ten machine-learning algorithms were compared. Performance was assessed using AUC, sensitivity, specificity, accuracy, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV), and F1 score. SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) supported feature selection and interpretation. Results: An 18-feature random forest model achieved a development-stage cross-validated AUC of 0.93 and external AUCs of 0.89, 0.87, and 0.90. Overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV, accuracy, and F1 score were 0.78, 0.90, 0.81, 0.91, 0.81, and 0.79, respectively. SHAP identified leukocyte, erythrocyte, and platelet indices as the most important features. A Streamlit application was developed for clinical evaluation. Using a development-derived APL alert threshold of 0.0966, APL sensitivity was 99.02% in development and 96.32%-97.94% across external cohorts, with PPVs of 54.34% and 35.58%-84.25%, respectively. External validation showed center-specific calibration shifts, indicating that predicted probabilities should not be interpreted as universally calibrated absolute diagnostic probabilities. Conclusions: Among patients already confirmed to have APL/M3, AMoL/M5, or ALL, this explainable model enabled low-cost preliminary differentiation using routine hematological data. It may support subtype prioritization and confirmatory testing but cannot replace standard diagnostics, identify other diagnoses, or screen unselected patients. Prospective multinational and workflow-based validation is required before routine implementation.

Indexed as

acute leukemiaclinical decision supportmachine learningrandom forestroutine hematological parametersSHAP

Identifiers

PMID42870939
PMCPMC13657969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.