4.6 Article

Validation of a Machine Learning Expert Supporting System, ImmunoGenius, Using Immunohistochemistry Results of 3000 Patients with Lymphoid Neoplasms

期刊

DIAGNOSTICS
卷 13, 期 7, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/diagnostics13071308

关键词

database; expert supporting system; machine learning; immunohistochemistry; probabilistic decision tree

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the prediction accuracy of the ImmunoGenius software using nationwide data to validate its clinical utility for hematolymphoid neoplasms. The results showed high diagnostic accuracy for lymphoid neoplasms.
(1) Background: Differential diagnosis using immunohistochemistry (IHC) panels is a crucial step in the pathological diagnosis of hematolymphoid neoplasms. In this study, we evaluated the prediction accuracy of the ImmunoGenius software using nationwide data to validate its clinical utility. (2) Methods: We collected pathologically confirmed lymphoid neoplasms and their corresponding IHC results from 25 major university hospitals in Korea between 2015 and 2016. We tested ImmunoGenius using these real IHC panel data and compared the precision hit rate with previously reported diagnoses. (3) Results: We enrolled 3052 cases of lymphoid neoplasms with an average of 8.3 IHC results. The precision hit rate was 84.5% for these cases, whereas it was 95.0% for 984 in-house cases. (4) Discussion: ImmunoGenius showed excellent results in most B-cell lymphomas and generally showed equivalent performance in T-cell lymphomas. The primary reasons for inaccurate precision were atypical IHC profiles of certain cases, lack of disease-specific markers, and overlapping IHC profiles of similar diseases. We verified that the machine-learning algorithm could be applied for diagnosis precision with a generally acceptable hit rate in a nationwide dataset. Clinical and histological features should also be taken into account for the proper use of this system in the decision-making process.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据