Artificial intelligence in hematology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: Artificial intelligence (AI) and its subdiscipline, machine learning (ML), have the potential to revolutionize health care, including hematology. The diagnosis and treatment of hematologic disorders depend on the integration of diverse data sources, such as imaging, pathology, omics, and laboratory parameters. The increasing volume and complexity of patient data have made clinical decision-making more challenging. AI/ML hold significant potential for enhancing diagnostic accuracy, risk stratification, and treatment response prediction through advanced modeling techniques. Generative AI, a recent advancement within the broader field of AI, is poised to have a profound impact on health care and hematology. Generative AI can enhance the development of novel therapeutic strategies, improve diagnostic workflows by generating high-fidelity images or pathology reports, and facilitate more personalized approaches to patient management. Its ability to augment clinical decision-making and streamline research represents a significant leap forward in the field. However, despite this potential, few AI/ML tools have been fully implemented in clinical practice due to challenges related to data quality, equity, advanced infrastructure, and the establishment of robust evaluation metrics. Despite its promise, AI implementation in hematology faces critical challenges, including bias, data quality issues, and a lack of regulatory frameworks and safety standards that keep pace with rapid technological advancements. In this review, we provide an overview of the current state of AI/ML in hematology as of 2025, identify existing gaps, and offer insights into future developments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".