Automated bone marrow cytology using deep learning to generate a histogram of cell types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Bone marrow cytology is required to make a hematological diagnosis, influencing critical clinical decision points in hematology. However, bone marrow cytology is tedious, limited to experienced reference centers and associated with inter-observer variability. This may lead to a delayed or incorrect diagnosis, leaving an unmet need for innovative supporting technologies. Methods: We develop an end-to-end deep learning-based system for automated bone marrow cytology. Starting with a bone marrow aspirate digital whole slide image, our system rapidly and automatically detects suitable regions for cytology, and subsequently identifies and classifies all bone marrow cells in each region. This collective cytomorphological information is captured in a representation called Histogram of Cell Types (HCT) quantifying bone marrow cell class probability distribution and acting as a cytological patient fingerprint. Results: Our system achieves high accuracy in region detection (0.97 accuracy and 0.99 ROC AUC), and cell detection and cell classification (0.75 mean average precision, 0.78 average F1-score, Log-average miss rate of 0.31). Conclusions: HCT has potential to eventually support more efficient and accurate diagnosis in hematology, supporting AI-enabled computational pathology.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".