ArticleAnnals of hematology2026
Comparison of the diagnostic performance of machine learning algorithms for differentiating iron deficiency anemia and thalassemia.
Article in Annals of hematology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Accurate discrimination between iron deficiency anemia (IDA) and thalassemia trait (TT) is clinically essential for the effective management of patients with hypochromic microcytic anemia. Although numerous discrimination indices based on red blood cell (RBC) parameters have been proposed, their diagnostic accuracy remains suboptimal and highly population-specific. This study aimed to develop and validate a machine learning model to enhance discriminative performance. We utilized a derivation cohort of 376 patients (IDA, n = 186; TT, n = 190) for model development and internal validation, and a separate validation cohort of 196 patients for external testing. Five machine learning algorithms—Extreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost), Logistic Regression (LR), Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM), Random Forest (RF), and AdaBoost—were trained and evaluated. Model performance was assessed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC), accuracy, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), and negative predictive value (NPV). The LightGBM classifier achieved an AUC of 0.953 (accuracy 86.9%) in the internal validation set and 0.980 (accuracy 93.1%) in testing set. In the external validation cohort, the model demonstrated robust generalizability, attaining an AUC of 0.992 with an accuracy of 98.5%, sensitivity of 96.7%. Feature importance analysis identified mean corpuscular hemoglobin concentration (MCHC) and red cell distribution width-standard deviation (RDW-SD)mean as the most discriminative predictors. We developed and externally validated a robust LightGBM-based classifier that accurately discriminates between IDA and TT, offering clinicians with with a reliable, non-invasive decision-support tool for the differential diagnosis of microcytic anemia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.