Back

Self-Supervised Learning Can Distinguish Myelodysplastic Neoplasms from Clinical Mimics Using Bone Marrow Biopsies

Mehrtash, V.; Le, H.; Jafarzadeh, B.; Loghavi, S.; Garcia-Manero, G.; Tsirigos, A.; Park, C. Y.

2025-02-21 pathology
10.1101/2025.02.17.25322075
Show abstract

The diagnosis of myelodysplastic neoplasms (MDS) requires examination of the bone marrow for morphologic evidence of dysplasia. We sought to determine if a self-supervised learning (SSL) AI image analysis approach may be utilized to reliably distinguish MDS from its clinically relevant mimics using bone marrow biopsies (BMBx). Whole slide images (WSIs) of H&E- and reticulin-stained BMBx sections from 243 unique patients (89 MDS, 55 non-MDS cytopenic controls [NMCC], and 99 negative control [NC] cases) were segmented into tiles and analyzed. These tiles were then processed using the Barlow Twins SSL model to generate histomorphologic phenotype clusters (HPCs). Review of the HPCs revealed the clusters enriched in MDS captured known histopathologic features of MDS including hypercellularity, dysplastic and clustered megakaryocytes, increased immature hematopoietic cells, increased vascularity, fibrosis, and cell streaming patterns. Assessment of 95 MDS BMBx images from a second institution showed consistent HPC enrichment patterns, validating the robustness of the model. The trained ensemble model using H&E- and reticulin-stained slides distinguished MDS from NCs with an AUC of 0.89, and from age-matched, NMCCs with an AUC of 0.84. These findings demonstrate the potential of SSL approaches to capture diagnostically relevant morphologic patterns and to improve the reproducibility of MDS diagnosis.

Matching journals

The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
Modern Pathology
based on 10 papers
Top 0.1%
16.0%
2
The American Journal of Pathology
based on 11 papers
Top 0.1%
13.2%
3
Cancers
based on 57 papers
Top 3%
6.7%
4
Journal of Clinical Pathology
based on 11 papers
Top 0.3%
6.7%
5
Journal of Clinical Microbiology
based on 77 papers
Top 1%
4.9%
6
PLOS ONE
based on 1737 papers
Top 71%
4.7%
50% of probability mass above
7
The Journal of Molecular Diagnostics
based on 24 papers
Top 0.3%
4.7%
8
Blood Advances
based on 16 papers
Top 0.4%
3.1%
9
Nature Communications
based on 483 papers
Top 21%
2.9%
10
JCI Insight
based on 63 papers
Top 2%
2.9%
11
Scientific Reports
based on 701 papers
Top 52%
2.9%
12
Computers in Biology and Medicine
based on 39 papers
Top 3%
2.4%
13
npj Precision Oncology
based on 14 papers
Top 1%
2.4%
14
Acta Neuropathologica
based on 11 papers
Top 0.5%
1.9%
15
Leukemia
based on 11 papers
Top 0.8%
1.8%
16
The Lancet Digital Health
based on 25 papers
Top 3%
1.4%
17
Gastroenterology
based on 11 papers
Top 1%
1.4%
18
npj Digital Medicine
based on 85 papers
Top 10%
1.4%
19
Journal of the American Society of Nephrology
based on 19 papers
Top 1.0%
1.4%
20
iScience
based on 74 papers
Top 5%
1.2%
21
European Respiratory Journal
based on 44 papers
Top 5%
0.8%
22
BMC Cancer
based on 21 papers
Top 4%
0.8%
23
Cureus
based on 64 papers
Top 19%
0.7%
24
JCO Clinical Cancer Informatics
based on 14 papers
Top 4%
0.7%
25
Clinical Chemistry
based on 14 papers
Top 2%
0.7%
26
eLife
based on 262 papers
Top 33%
0.7%
27
Journal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer
based on 14 papers
Top 3%
0.7%