4.6 Article

Diagnosis of Acute Leukemia by Multiparameter Flow Cytometry with the Assistance of Artificial Intelligence

Journal

DIAGNOSTICS
Volume 12, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics12040827

Keywords

artificial intelligence; acute leukemia; multiparameter flow cytometry

Funding

  1. Guangdong Basic and Applied Basic Research Foundation [2019A1515011663]
  2. First Affiliated Hospital of Sun Yat-Sen University Horizontal Project Foundation [2019028]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

An AI model was developed to diagnose acute leukemia using MFC, showing shorter analysis time and higher consistency compared to manual methods.
We developed an artificial intelligence (AI) model that evaluates the feasibility of AI-assisted multiparameter flow cytometry (MFC) diagnosis of acute leukemia. Two hundred acute leukemia patients and 94 patients with cytopenia(s) or hematocytosis were selected to study the AI application in MFC diagnosis of acute leukemia. The kappa test analyzed the consistency of the diagnostic results and the immunophenotype of acute leukemia. Bland-Altman and Pearson analyses evaluated the consistency and correlation of the abnormal cell proportion between the AI and manual methods. The AI analysis time for each case (83.72 +/- 23.90 s, mean +/- SD) was significantly shorter than the average time for manual analysis (15.64 +/- 7.16 min, mean +/- SD). The total consistency of diagnostic results was 0.976 (kappa (kappa) = 0.963). The Bland-Altman evaluation of the abnormal cell proportion between the AI analysis and manual analysis showed that the bias +/- SD was 0.752 +/- 6.646, and the 95% limit of agreement was from -12.775 to 13.779 (p = 0.1225). The total consistency of the AI immunophenotypic diagnosis and the manual results was 0.889 (kappa, 0.775). The consistency and speedup of the AI-assisted workflow indicate its promising clinical application.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available