ClinicalTrials.gg
RecruitingNCT04466059BELUGAUpdated Oct 9, 2026

Better Leukemia Diagnostics Through AI (BELUGA)

An observational study in Hematologic Malignancy, Leukemia and Minimal Residual Disease, sponsored by Munich Leukemia Laboratory. Recruiting at 1 site in Germany. Open to participants aged 18 Years and older, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-10-09.

Sponsored by Munich Leukemia Laboratory · Observational

From the registry’s dates

  • Started Jan 2020; still recruiting 6 years 10 months later.
Updated Oct 9, 2026Primary completion movedStudy completion movedGo to Updates ↓
Study type
Observational
Model
Case-control
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
25,000
Ages
18 Years and older
Sex
All
01

Study summary

To the best of our knowledge, BELUGA will be the first prospective trial investigating the usefulness of deep learning-based hematologic diagnostic algorithms. Taking advantage of an unprecedented collection of diagnostic samples consisting of flow cytometry datapoints and digitalized blood-smears, categorization of yet undiagnosed patient samples will prospectively be compared to current state-of-the-art diagnosis at the Munich Leukemia Laboratory (hereafter MLL). In total, a collection of 25,000 digitalized blood smears and 25,000 flow cytometry datapoints will be prospectively used to train an AI-based deep neuronal network for correct categorization. Subsequently, the superiority will be challenged for the primary endpoints: sensitivity and specificity of diagnosis, most probable diagnosis, and time to diagnose. The secondary endpoints will compare the consequences regarding further diagnostic work-up and, thus, clinical decision making between routine diagnosis and AI guided diagnostics. BELUGA will set the stage for the introduction of AI-based hematologic diagnostics in a real-world setting.

Read the detailed description

In numerous recent studies, deep neuronal networks (DNN) have been leveraged to examine the usefulness of artificial intelligence (AI)-based DNN for diagnostic purposes. In essence, they have successfully proved to recapitulate state-of-the-art diagnoses currently performed by humans.

Specifically, the use of artificial intelligence for pattern recognition showed that DNN could categorize complex and composite data points, chiefly images, with high fidelity to a specific pathogenic condition or disease. The majority of these studies are primarily based on extensive training sample collections that were categorized a priori. Subsequently, this "training" provided the necessary input to classify newly delivered specimens into the correct subgroups, frequently even outperforming independent human investigators. So far, these studies have thus provided the rationale for the use of DNN in real-world diagnostics. However, the prerequisite for using DNN in a real-world setting, where specimen sampling and analysis would need to outperform human diagnosis prospectively, would be a blinded and prospective trial. Currently, there is a lack of prospective data, therefore still challenging the notion that DNN can outperform state-of-the-art human-based diagnostic algorithms. Here we want to investigate the validity and usefulness of AI-based diagnostic capabilities prospectively in a real-world setting.

Hematologic diagnostics heavily rely on multiple methodically distinct approaches, of which phenotyping aberrant blood or bone marrow cells from affected patients represents a cornerstone for all subsequent methods, such as chromosomal or molecular genetic analyses. At the MLL, five different diagnostic pillars are required to provide diagnostic evidence for a specific malignant blood disorder faithfully: cytomorphology and immunophenotyping first, guiding more specific methods such as cytogenetics, FISH, and a diversity of molecular genetic assays.

+++ Objectives +++

Phenotyping of blood cells is primarily based on two distinct challenges; (1) the morphological appearance and abundance of specific cell types and (2) the presence of particular lineage markers detected by flow cytometry. These two methods are critical for each subsequent decision-making process and, thus ultimately, the final diagnosis. Simultaneously, these two methods are ideally suited for automated analysis by DNN due to their inherent image-based nature. This has been recently illustrated by a publication by Marr and colleagues (Matek et al., 2019; https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0101-9)

In BELUGA, we want to investigate whether the automated analysis of blood (from peripheral blood and bone marrow aspirates) smears and flow-cytometry-based analyses can provide a benefit for diagnostic quality and, ultimately, patient care. Moreover, BELUGA will provide evidence for the cooperative nature of image-based diagnostic tools for other pillars of hematologic diagnostic decision making such as genetic and molecular genetic characterization.

BELUGA, therefore, consists of three parts (A-C) (See Figure in the attached File). In A, we want to train a DNN with an unprecedented collection of blood smears and flow-cytometry-based data points collected during the course of 15 years. These samples consist of all hematological malignancies currently identified and recognized by the current WHO classification for hematologic malignancies. Due to the varying incidences of these entities, the total number of training items varies from 1,000 to 20,000 for 15 years. However, we deem this discrepancy a benefit to this trial's overall aims, because this diverse spectrum will inform us on the number of training items needed for outperforming the state-of-the-art diagnostics in cytomorphology or flow cytometry.

In part B, we will compare the overall performance of our trained DNN prospectively to new yet undiagnosed samples arriving at our laboratory (see the main section for details). The superiority of DNN based categorization will be challenged based on the pre-defined outcome parameters accuracy with respect to state-of-the-art diagnostics, mismatch-rate, and time needed to provide a diagnostic probability.

Lastly, in C, we will investigate the effects on faster and more accurate diagnostic power by leveraging our trained DNN to aid downstream diagnostic methodologies such as chromosomal analysis or panel sequencing of patient samples.

02

Conditions studied

  • Hematologic Malignancy
  • Leukemia
  • Minimal Residual Disease
  • Lymphoma
  • Blood Cancer

Keywords

  • hematology
  • laboratory medicine
  • AI-based diagnostics
  • artificial intelligence
  • deep neuronal networks
03

In context

Hematologic Neoplasms

1,444 studies on the registry are indexed under Hematologic Neoplasms; 420 are open to participants now.

This study's planned enrollment of 25,000 is above the median of 186 across 322 observational studies indexed under Hematologic Neoplasms.

Browse Hematologic Neoplasms studies →

Lead sponsor

Munich Leukemia Laboratory is the lead sponsor of 2 studies on the registry; 2 are open to participants now.

Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years and older
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes
Sampling method
Non-probability sample

Study population

The training cohort of BELUGA consists of 50,000 annotated samples for which cytomorphological smears (25,000 samples) and immunophenotyping (25,000 samples) data points have been collected. This cohort serves as a foundation for the DNN to perform training. Our test cohort will consist of all samples for which cytomorphology and immunophenotyping will be performed for one year.

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

  • Patients having been diagnosed with a suspected hematological disorder
  • The suspected diagnoses constitute a primary diagnosis
  • Only samples of patients min.18 years of age will be used
  • Samples must suffice quality attributes which are denoted in "Exclusion Criteria"

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

  • The sample is not fit for state-of-the-art diagnosis or fails initial quality control. For quality insurance, we will exclude samples in heparin- instead of EDTA. Samples with damage due to atmospheric reasons (freeze-thaw damage or elevated temperature) will be excluded.
  • Samples with too scarce material jeopardizing routine gold-standard diagnosis will be excluded.
  • Bone marrow aspirates without sufficient material to assess malignant or healthy hematopoiesis.
05

Study design

Observational model
Case-control
Time perspective
Prospective
Enrollment
25,000 participants (estimated)
Patient registry
No
Biospecimen retention
Samples with dna

Interventions

  • Diagnostic testAutomated AI-Guided Diagnosis of Hematological Malignancies

    In BELUGA, we want to investigate whether the automated analysis of blood (from peripheral blood and bone marrow aspirates) smears and flow-cytometry-based analyses can provide a benefit for diagnostic quality and, ultimately, patient care.

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Sensitivity and Specificity of AI Guided diagnostics in Hematology

    As a primary endpoint, we will examine the ability of DNN to classify disorders according to (after initial assessment disease/healthy) to the gold-standard diagnosis. The gold-standard diagnosis is defined as an integrated diagnosis, including cytomorphology, flow cytometry, cytogenetics, FISH, and molecular genetics. DNN will independently provide a bi-directional (probabilistic) diagnosis, with the most probable diagnosis. The primary analysis will include a direct comparison between the human cytomorphological examination and the pattern recognition software. Secondly, this result will be provided to downstream diagnostic departments to assess phenotypic diagnosis's usefulness for genetic characterization. We hypothesize that the turn-around time will be significantly enhanced, further providing quality at sooner timepoint.

    Time frame: 08-01-2020 until 07-31-2021

Secondary outcomes

  1. comparison of clinical consequences

    We will compare the clinical recommendation obtained after routine gold-standard diagnostics and after AI-guided categorization of all samples enrolled in this study

    Time frame: 08-01-2020 until 07-31-2021

  2. predictive diagnostic value

    We will assess the predictive value of unsupervised categorization and diagnosis in comparison to gold-standard routine testing.

    Time frame: 08-01-2020 until 07-31-2021

  3. turn-around-time

    We will measure the turn-around-time of gold-standard diagnostics in comparison to AI-guided diagnosis.

    Time frame: 08-01-2020 until 07-31-2021

  4. enumerate entity-specific benchmarks (e.g., blast count in leukemia) count)

    We will assess secondary disease specific values determined by AI/DNN based unsupervised diagnosis versus routine testing.

    Time frame: 08-01-2020 until 07-31-2021

07

Study locations

1 of 1 sites recruiting
08

References and documents

Publications

  • Zhao M, Mallesh N, Hollein A, Schabath R, Haferlach C, Haferlach T, Elsner F, Luling H, Krawitz P, Kern W. Hematologist-Level Classification of Mature B-Cell Neoplasm Using Deep Learning on Multiparameter Flow Cytometry Data. Cytometry A. 2020 Oct;97(10):1073-1080. doi: 10.1002/cyto.a.24159. Epub 2020 Jun 9. PubMed 32519455 ↗

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Undecided

09

Timeline

1 registry update since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedDate before it movedWhere the date was before it movedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Started Jan 2020 (actual). Primary completion is estimated for Jul 2027, 90 months after the start.

Of 186 observational studies under Hematologic Neoplasms, half reached primary completion within 74 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 34 and three quarters within 322. This study's planned 90 months is above that.

Since we started tracking on Sep 25, 2026, the dates moved once, on Oct 9, 2026: primary completion Jul 2025 → Jul 2027 and completion Jul 2025 → Jul 2027.

Earlier changes are on the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Jul 6, 2020
First posted
Jul 10, 2020
StartActual
Jan 5, 2020
Primary completionEst.
Jul 31, 2027was Jul 2025
CompletionEst.
Jul 31, 2027was Jul 2025
Last update
Oct 9, 2026
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
Primary completion
Jul 31, 2025→Jul 31, 2027
Oct 9, 2026
Study completion
Jul 31, 2025→Jul 31, 2027
Oct 9, 2026
Show all 1 update
  1. Oct 9, 2026
    Primary completion Jul 31, 2025→Jul 31, 2027
    Study completion Jul 31, 2025→Jul 31, 2027
    + 2 other changes: verification date and index terms

From the registry record's own update history. This site started tracking changes on Sep 25, 2026; for anything earlier, see the record history on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

10

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT04466059
Lead sponsor
Munich Leukemia Laboratory
Responsible party
Torsten Haferlach (Prof. Dr. Dr., Munich Leukemia Laboratory) — Principal investigator
First posted
Jul 10, 2020
Start date
Jan 5, 2020
Primary completion
Jul 31, 2027 (estimated)
Completion
Jul 31, 2027 (estimated)
Last update
Oct 9, 2026

Study contacts

Adam Wahida, MD
Contact
adam.wahida@mll.com
+49 (0)89 99017 338
Torsten Haferlach, Prof. Dr.Dr.
Contact
torsten.haferlach@mll.com
+49 (0)89 99017 100
Wolfgang Kern, Prof. Dr.
principal investigator · MLL Munich Leukemia Laboratory

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
Yes
FDA-regulated drug
No
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Interested in this study?

Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.

Contact study team

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Start the discussion