Comprehensive performance assessment of the BMIA-12 a system for bone marrow cell quantification in normal and hematological malignancy samples

Manual bone marrow (BM) differential counting is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and prone to inter-observer variability. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems can standardize BM cytological assessments. This study evaluated the BMIA-12 A system (UIMD, Seoul, Korea) for automated BM cell recognition and differential counting. A total of 298 BM aspirate smears from 149 patients were analyzed, including normal controls (n = 50), multiple myeloma (n = 33), monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (n = 6), acute myeloid leukemia (AML; n = 40), acute promyelocytic leukemia (n = 4), and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL; n = 16). Three classification methods were compared: AI-automated, expert-reviewed AI, and manual microscopic counting. Both wedge and squash preparations were assessed. System performance was evaluated using recall, precision, F1-score, and accuracy. BMIA-12 A achieved accuracies of 94.6% (wedge) and 94.0% (squash), with recall > 90% for 14/16 cell types. Wedge preparations showed superior precision for key diagnostic cells, including plasma cells, blasts, and basophils. Strong correlations (r ≥ 0.9) were observed between AI-automated and expert-reviewed classifications for nine cell types. However, disease-specific quantification varied significantly by method, particularly for plasma cell and blast percentages. Inter-method discrepancies were pronounced in AML with NPM1 mutation and B-ALL with BCR::ABL1 fusion. Overall, BMIA-12 A provides robust classification for normal BM samples. Persistent inter-method differences highlight the need for further validation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Scientific Reports
Published
2026-02-13
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-026-39443-1
Primary Topic
Digital Imaging for Blood Diseases
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Comprehensive performance assessment of the BMIA-12 a system for bone marrow cell quantification in normal and hematological malignancy samples

Jung Ah Kwon, Soo Young Yoon, Jin Hee Lee, Ha Young Kim et al.
Scientific Reports
Digital Imaging for Blood Diseases
article

Comprehensive performance assessment of the BMIA-12 a system for bone marrow cell quantification in normal and hematological malignancy samples

Jung Ah Kwon, Soo Young Yoon, Jin Hee Lee, Ha Young Kim, Yoon Jung
article en

Abstract

Manual bone marrow (BM) differential counting is labor-intensive, time-consuming, and prone to inter-observer variability. Artificial intelligence (AI)-based systems can standardize BM cytological assessments. This study evaluated the BMIA-12 A system (UIMD, Seoul, Korea) for automated BM cell recognition and differential counting. A total of 298 BM aspirate smears from 149 patients were analyzed, including normal controls (n = 50), multiple myeloma (n = 33), monoclonal gammopathy of undetermined significance (n = 6), acute myeloid leukemia (AML; n = 40), acute promyelocytic leukemia (n = 4), and acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL; n = 16). Three classification methods were compared: AI-automated, expert-reviewed AI, and manual microscopic counting. Both wedge and squash preparations were assessed. System performance was evaluated using recall, precision, F1-score, and accuracy. BMIA-12 A achieved accuracies of 94.6% (wedge) and 94.0% (squash), with recall > 90% for 14/16 cell types. Wedge preparations showed superior precision for key diagnostic cells, including plasma cells, blasts, and basophils. Strong correlations (r ≥ 0.9) were observed between AI-automated and expert-reviewed classifications for nine cell types. However, disease-specific quantification varied significantly by method, particularly for plasma cell and blast percentages. Inter-method discrepancies were pronounced in AML with NPM1 mutation and B-ALL with BCR::ABL1 fusion. Overall, BMIA-12 A provides robust classification for normal BM samples. Persistent inter-method differences highlight the need for further validation.

Scientific ReportsVol. 16(1)
Korea University (KR), Korea University (JP)
Decent work and economic growth
Openalex Percentile: Top 57%
Digital Imaging for Blood Diseases
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.