BPG is committed to discovery and dissemination of knowledge
Review
Copyright: ©Author(s) 2026.
World J Stem Cells. Aug 26, 2026; 18(8): 121077
Published online Aug 26, 2026. doi: 10.4252/wjsc.121077
Table 4 Artificial intelligence performance vs conventional methods in acute myeloid leukemia and multiple myeloma risk stratification
Disease
Conventional method
AI method
Key performance advantages
Ref.
AMLELN risk stratificationMulti-omics deep learningOutperforms ELN-based approaches. Identifies LSC burden (not quantified by ELN). > 90% accuracy in therapy resistance prediction. Integrates clinical, cytogenetic, and molecular data[53]
AMLTraditional cytogenetic/molecular classificationSupervised machine learningSuperior prediction of complete remission and 2-year survival. External validation confirms generalizability[17]
MMStandard risk assessmentMulti-omics integration (neural networks)Accuracy in therapy resistance prediction. Enhanced drug resistance prediction. Integration of genomic biomarkers and clinical parameters[31,32,98]
MMStandard histopathologyDeep learning (MoSaicNet & AwareNet)Spatial heterogeneity detection beyond cell density. Differentiates MGUS from MM based on spatial architecture[30]
HSCT GVHDCox proportional hazard modelsCNN-NLP hybridSuperior risk stratification. Stratifies aGVHD incidence from 31.8% to 54.8%. Processes detailed HLA information vs binary matching[41]
HSCT cGVHDNIH consensus severity criteriaMachine learning phenotypingIdentified 7 distinct phenotypes. 2.24-fold mortality difference between risk groups. Better survival stratification than traditional scores[42]


Write to the Help Desk