2006 Bethesda International Consensus Conference on Flow Cytometric Immunophenotyping of Hematolymphoid Neoplasia
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
The utility of flow cytometric analysis in leukemia and lymphoma gained acceptance in the late 1980s and now it is established medical practice in the diagnosis of hematolymphoid neoplasia. Evidence that flow cytometry is useful in prognostication and monitoring response to therapy in several diseases has also accumulated. As the utility of this technology achieved widespread recognition, new flow cytometry laboratories were created to add this valuable technique to the diagnostic arsenal available. Coincident with the evolution of this new field, was a growing concern among practitioners about inconsistent practices as well as deficiencies in technique standardization and validation and its possible impact on patient care. To address this issue a group of U.S. and Canadian hematopathologists, hematologists, and laboratory scientists met in Bethesda, MD from November 16–17, 1995 to develop the U.S.–Canadian Consensus Recommendations on the Immunophenotypic Analysis of Hematologic Neoplasia by Flow Cytometry. The consensus document produced provided guidance on standardization and validation of laboratory procedures, data analysis and interpretation and data reporting. Guidelines were also provided on medical indications for testing by listing diseases in which flow cytometric analysis contributed positively to patient care. Although consensus could not be reached at that time on the number or combination of antibodies utilized in flow cytometric evaluation of leukemia or lymphoma, strategies were provided for the selection of antibodies and lists of markers useful in identification of acute leukemias and lymphoproliferative processes. In 2000 the Clinical Cytometry Society organized a second, international, conference in an attempt to further standardize antibody choice. The participants reached consensus on the optimal number of reagents required to evaluate hematolymphoid neoplasia, but the recommendations were again based on disease diagnosis. In 2006 there was growing recognition of the need to set standards of training and education for practitioners in the field of flow cytometry, including technologists, interpreters, and laboratory directors. It was also realized that listing diseases in which flow cytometric analysis is medically indicated does not provide the type of practical guidelines needed in determining if this testing is indicated in any patient not yet diagnosed with hematolymphoid neoplasia. Medical indications for flow cytometric analysis that are based upon clinical signs and symptoms suggestive of hematolymphoid neoplasia are needed in the field. Similarly, guidelines on antibody panels recommended for patients presenting with specific signs and symptoms are desirable. To address these issues the Clinical Cytometry Society organized the 2006 Bethesda International Consensus Conference on Flow Cytometric Immunophenotyping of Hematolymphoid Neoplasia from July 14–15, 2006 in Bethesda, MD. The final consensus recommendations generated at this conference are presented in this issue.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle