Back

Image-based Explainable Artificial Intelligence Accurately Identifies Myelodysplastic Neoplasms Beyond Conventional Signs of Dysplasia

Eckardt, J.-N.; Srivastava, I.; Schulze, F.; Winter, S.; Schmittmann, T.; Riechert, S.; Schneider, M.; Reichel, L.; Gediga, M. E. H.; Sockel, K.; Sulaiman, A. S.; Roellig, C.; Kroschinsky, F.; Asemissen, A.-M.; Pohlkamp, C.; Haferlach, T.; Bornhaeuser, M.; Wendt, K.; Middeke, J. M.

2025-01-28 hematology
10.1101/2025.01.27.25321165 medRxiv
Show abstract

Evaluation of bone marrow morphology by experienced hematologists is key in the diagnosis of myeloid neoplasms, especially to detect subtle signs of dysplasia in myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS). The majority of recently introduced deep learning (DL) models in cytomorphology rely heavily on manually drafted cell-level labels, a time-consuming, laborious process that is prone to substantial inter-observer variability, thereby representing a substantial bottleneck in model development. Instead, we used robust image-level labels for end-to-end DL and trained several state-of-the-art computer vision models on bone marrow smears of 463 patients with MDS, 1301 patients with acute myeloid leukemia (AML), and 236 bone marrow donors. For the binary classifications of MDS vs. donors and MDS vs. AML, we obtained an area-under-the-receiver-operating-characteristic (ROCAUC) of 0.9708 and 0.9945, respectively, in our internal test sets. Results were confirmed in an external validation cohort of 50 MDS patients with corresponding ROCAUC of 0.9823 and 0.98552, respectively. Explainability via occlusion sensitivity mapping showed high network attention on cell nuclei not solely of dysplastic cells. We not only provide a highly accurate model to detect MDS from bone marrow smears, but also underline the capabilities of end-to-end learning to solve the bottleneck of time-consuming cell-level labeling.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Cytometry Part A
30 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
19.7%
2
npj Precision Oncology
48 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
18.9%
3
PLOS Computational Biology
1633 papers in training set
Top 1%
17.8%
50% of probability mass above
4
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 35%
3.6%
5
eLife
5422 papers in training set
Top 32%
2.6%
6
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 1%
2.1%
7
Journal of The Royal Society Interface
189 papers in training set
Top 2%
2.1%
8
Nature Communications
4913 papers in training set
Top 48%
1.9%
9
Medical Image Analysis
33 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.8%
10
npj Digital Medicine
97 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
11
Science Advances
1098 papers in training set
Top 17%
1.7%
12
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 56%
1.5%
13
Frontiers in Immunology
586 papers in training set
Top 5%
1.5%
14
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.4%
15
Clinical Chemistry
22 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.2%
16
Computers in Biology and Medicine
120 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.0%
17
Nature Machine Intelligence
61 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.9%
18
Frontiers in Genetics
197 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.9%
19
Leukemia
39 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.9%
20
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Frontiers in Medicine
113 papers in training set
Top 7%
0.8%
22
Nature Medicine
117 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
23
Journal of Pathology Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
0.7%
24
Diagnostics
48 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
25
npj Systems Biology and Applications
99 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.7%
26
Clinical Chemistry and Laboratory Medicine (CCLM)
12 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
27
Blood Cancer Journal
11 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
0.7%
28
Transplantation
13 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
0.5%
29
Biomedicines
66 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.5%
30
Briefings in Bioinformatics
326 papers in training set
Top 8%
0.5%