Multi-endpoint AI morphology model (MEAM) enhances risk prediction for vascular events and disease progression in MPNs

X Xuezi Hu (1Ground Truth Labs, Oxford, United Kingdom) A Alan Aberdeen (2Ground Truth Labs, Oxford, United Kingdom) S Sharon Ruane R Rosalin Cooper (1Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom) T Timothy Ebsworth (1Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom) S Sanam Loghavi D David Ross (1Royal Adelaide Hospital and SA Pathology, Adelaide, Australia) D Diana Iarossi (5Royal Adelaide Hospital and SA Pathology, Adelaide, Australia) M Markus Tiemann (Department of Biology Chemistry, Pharmacy Institute of Pharmacy Freie Universität Berlin Königin‐Luise‐Str. 2+4 14195 Berlin Germany) A Amin Turki (22Ruhr-University Bochum, Marienhospital University Hospital, Bochum, Germany) A Andrew Sung (8UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States) M Mingyi Chen (School of Materials Science and Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Solidification Processing, International Centre for Materials Discovery, Northwestern Polytechnical University) Z Zijun Xu-Monette (1Duke University Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Durham, United States) K Ken H. Young (1Duke University Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Durham, United States) A Anna Godfrey (10Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom) J Jyoti Nangalia J Joanna Baxter (3University of Cambridge, Department of Haematology, Cambridge, United Kingdom) A Anthony Green (12Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom) M Mary Frances McMullin (School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom) A Adam Mead (1University of Oxford, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, Oxford, United Kingdom) C Claire Harrison (11Department of Haematology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom) J Jens Rittscher (9Institute of Biomedical Engineering and the Nuffield Department of Medicine, Department of Engineering Science, Oxford, United Kingdom) K Korsuk Sirinukunwattana (2Ground Truth Labs, Oxford, United Kingdom) D Daniel Royston (1Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom)

Abstract

Abstract INTRODUCTION The myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPNs) are clonal haematological disorders that display significant clinical heterogeneity. A significant challenge remains identifying patients at increased risk of death, life-altering vascular events or disease transformation (secondary myelofibrosis or blast phase disease/AML). Conventional risk predictors incorporate patient age, blood parameters, molecular profiling and previous thrombosis. However, these risk predictors are restricted to specific clinical events, incompletely capture the dynamic nature of MPN and have limited scope to detect therapy-driven disease modification. Improved dynamic personalised risk prediction that captures fundamental aspects of bone marrow (BM) health in MPN have potential to complement and enhance existing risk models and support the evaluation of new treatments. Here, we propose a novel multi-endpoint AI morphological model (MEAM) that derives risk scores from Essential Thrombocythemia (ET) and Polycythemia Vera (PV) BM trephine (BMT) samples. The adverse events captured include vascular events (thrombosis and haemorrhage), fibrotic (MF) transformation, blast phase / AML transformation and overall survival (OS). METHODS Our training data consists of 949 patients drawn from independent MPN cohorts [PT1 (n=545), MAJIC (n=216), and supplementary internal sources (n=188)], including 643 ET, 145 PV, 39 MF, 102 normal, and 20 AML cases. A total of 1661 H&E WSIs were used. Using a Cox proportional hazards (CPH) framework, we trained a vision transformer to predict multi-dimensional log hazard ratios for four survival endpoints, with built-in attention heatmaps for interpretability. Patch-level features were extracted at 20x magnification using the CTransPath foundation model. The algorithm was developed using 5-fold cross-validation, achieving an average C-index of 0.77 ± 0.017. Predictions on the screening samples from the validation folds were used to illustrate the tool's clinical utility. RESULTS In ET patients, MEAM matched or exceeded established clinical models in C-index: OS prediction (0.66 vs IPSET = 0.63) and vascular events (0.60 vs revised IPSET thrombosis R-IPSET-T = 0.64). Although no validated risk models currently exist to predict transformation in chronic MPN, we also compared our model's performance against IPSET. MEAM outperformed secondary MF prediction (0.68 vs IPSET =0.57) and AML transformation (0.76 vs IPSET =0.52). Combining MEAM with conventional risk scores markedly improved the prediction across all endpoints: OS [MEAM+IPSET=0.71 (+13%)], vascular events [MEAM+R-IPSET-T=0.68 (+5.9%)], MF transformation [MEAM+IPSET=0.68 (+19%)] and AML transformation [MEAM+IPSET=0.75 (+44%)]. In PV patients, MEAM improved risk prediction over conventional models that incorporates age and previous thrombosis: C-index in progression to secondary MF [MEAM=0.67, conventional=0.50, combined=0.66 (+31%)] and AML progression [MEAM=0.69, conventional=0.56, combined=0.70 (+24%)]. MEAM brought an uplift of 0.02% and 4.1% to vascular and death risk predictions, respectively to the conventional C-index (0.53 and 0.62) when used in conjunction. With an optimised threshold for time-dependent AUROC, ET patients were binarized into low/high risk groups. MEAM stratified all four endpoints significantly (log-rank p < 0.01). Within 5 years of biopsy 80 ET patients experienced a vascular event, with R-IPSET-T failing to flag 25 as being high risk. Notably, MEAM flagged 10 of these cases correctly as high risk. Of 35 patients younger than 60 at diagnosis in whom there was a subsequent vascular event, R-IPSET-T misclassified 77% (27/35) as (very) low/intermediate risk. MEAM correctly identified 10/27 (37%) of these as high risk. Among 34 deaths in this younger age group, IPSET labelled all as low/intermediate risk. By contrast, MEAM identified 13/34 (38%) as high risk. CONCLUSIONS We present an AI-based morphological model that enhances risk stratification in ET and PV. Our morphology predictor offers prediction power comparable or superior to established clinical risk predictors for vascular events, disease progression and OS. Using MEAM to augment existing and newly emerging prognostic tools, we envision an interpretable and dynamic morphological risk score that is ideally suited to routine clinical application and can support the development of novel therapies that aim to induce meaningful disease modification in MPN.

Article Details

Journal Blood
Volume / Issue Vol. 146, Issue Supplement 1
Published November 03, 2025
Pages 5599-5599
ISSN 0006-4971
Publisher Elsevier BV

Journal Info

Blood

Elsevier BV

ISSN: 0006-4971 Health Sciences

Authors (24)

X

Xuezi Hu

1Ground Truth Labs, Oxford, United Kingdom

A

Alan Aberdeen

2Ground Truth Labs, Oxford, United Kingdom

S

Sharon Ruane

R

Rosalin Cooper

1Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom

T

Timothy Ebsworth

1Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom

S

Sanam Loghavi

D

David Ross

1Royal Adelaide Hospital and SA Pathology, Adelaide, Australia

D

Diana Iarossi

5Royal Adelaide Hospital and SA Pathology, Adelaide, Australia

M

Markus Tiemann

Department of Biology Chemistry, Pharmacy Institute of Pharmacy Freie Universität Berlin Königin‐Luise‐Str. 2+4 14195 Berlin Germany

A

Amin Turki

22Ruhr-University Bochum, Marienhospital University Hospital, Bochum, Germany

A

Andrew Sung

8UT Southwestern Medical Center, Dallas, United States

M

Mingyi Chen

School of Materials Science and Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Solidification Processing, International Centre for Materials Discovery, Northwestern Polytechnical University

Z

Zijun Xu-Monette

1Duke University Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Durham, United States

K

Ken H. Young

1Duke University Medical Center, Department of Pathology, Durham, United States

A

Anna Godfrey

10Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Trust, Cambridge, United Kingdom

J

Jyoti Nangalia

J

Joanna Baxter

3University of Cambridge, Department of Haematology, Cambridge, United Kingdom

A

Anthony Green

12Cambridge Stem Cell Institute, Cambridge, United Kingdom

M

Mary Frances McMullin

School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Biomedical Sciences, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, United Kingdom

A

Adam Mead

1University of Oxford, Radcliffe Department of Medicine, Oxford, United Kingdom

C

Claire Harrison

11Department of Haematology, Guy’s and St Thomas’ National Health Service Foundation Trust, London, United Kingdom

J

Jens Rittscher

9Institute of Biomedical Engineering and the Nuffield Department of Medicine, Department of Engineering Science, Oxford, United Kingdom

K

Korsuk Sirinukunwattana

2Ground Truth Labs, Oxford, United Kingdom

D

Daniel Royston

1Nuffield Division of Clinical Laboratory Sciences, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, United Kingdom