Cell projection plots: A novel visualization of bone marrow aspirate cytology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Deep models for cell detection have demonstrated utility in bone marrow cytology, showing impressive results in terms of accuracy and computational efficiency. However, these models have yet to be implemented in the clinical diagnostic workflow. Additionally, the metrics used to evaluate cell detection models are not necessarily aligned with clinical goals and targets. In order to address these issues, we introduce novel, automatically generated visual summaries of bone marrow aspirate specimens called cell projection plots (CPPs). Encompassing relevant biological patterns such as neutrophil maturation, CPPs provide a compact summary of bone marrow aspirate cytology. To gauge clinical relevance, CPPs were inspected by 3 hematopathologists, who decided whether corresponding diagnostic synopses matched with generated CPPs. Pathologists were able to match CPPs to the correct synopsis with a matching degree of 85%. Our finding suggests CPPs can represent clinically relevant information from bone marrow aspirate specimens and may be used to efficiently summarize bone marrow cytology to pathologists. CPPs could be a step toward human-centered implementation of artificial intelligence (AI) in hematopathology, and a basis for a diagnostic-support tool for digital pathology workflows.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".