Difficulties in Establishing the Cause of Thrombocytopenia Among Ambulatory Patients Referred to Hematology: An Agreement Study
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Abstract Introduction: Thrombocytopenia is a common reason for referral to a hematology clinic. Determining the underlying etiology can be challenging as common diagnoses including immune thrombocytopenia (ITP), myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and familial thrombocytopenia lack specific or easily identifiable diagnostic markers. Thus, the reliability of the diagnosis is uncertain, which has implications for patient management and eligibility for clinical trials. The objective of this study was to determine the reliability of the diagnosis of thrombocytopenia in the outpatient setting among 3 independent adjudicators. Methods: We selected 20 patients referred to a tertiary hematology clinic with thrombocytopenia, who were enrolled in a prospective observational registry study (the McMaster ITP Registry). The most common diagnoses that appeared in the registry were represented: Primary ITP (n=9); secondary ITP (n=3); familial thrombocytopenia (n=3); hypersplenism (n=3); and MDS (n=2). Blinded to the diagnosis, 3 hematologists with clinical and research experience in thrombocytopenic disorders independently reviewed all source documentation, which included referral notes, consultation and follow up notes, results of pertinent investigations, treatments administered and response to treatments. Adjudicators chose one diagnosis from a list (primary ITP, secondary ITP, MDS, thrombocytopenia of pregnancy, thrombocytopenia of malignancy, familial thrombocytopenia, splenomegaly, liver disease, thrombotic microangiopathy, cyclic thrombocytopenia, Evan’s syndrome or unknown) and were invited to explain how they did or did not arrive at the diagnosis. Agreement among the 3 adjudicators and between each adjudicator and the initial diagnosis was calculated using Fleiss’s kappa (k). Results: Overall agreement among the reviewers for the diagnosis of thrombocytopenia was moderate (k=0.51, 95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.63). All 3 adjudicators had perfect agreement for 10 of 20 patients with primary ITP (n=5), secondary ITP (n=3), and MDS (n=2). Median nadir platelet count for the group with ITP (primary or secondary) was 4 x109/L (IQR 3x109/L to 5x109/L). These patients demonstrated a platelet count response after corticosteroids or intravenous immune globulin (IVIg) or after treatment of their underlying disease (e.g. response to HAART in HIV-associated ITP). For 6 patients, 2 out of 3 adjudicators agreed on the diagnosis of primary ITP (n=2), familial thrombocytopenia (n=1), hypersplenism (n=1) and liver disease (n=2). 4 of these diagnoses (2 ITP, 1 familial, 1 hypersplenism) matched the initial diagnosis in the chart. For 4 patients, all 3 adjudicators arrived at different diagnoses of either familial thrombocytopenia, primary ITP, or unknown. The median nadir platelet count among those patients was 38 x109/L (IQR 29x109/L to 45x109/L). Two of these patients never received treatment for thrombocytopenia; one patient had no response to corticosteroids or IVIg. Adjudicators reported that the diagnosis of ITP hinged on the patients’ response to IVIg and “unknown” cause was selected when insufficient platelet count measurements were available or other potentially relevant investigations (e.g., bone marrow aspirate) were missing. Conclusion: Inter-rater reliability for the diagnosis of thrombocytopenic disorders was moderate. Agreement was highest for patients with ITP (primary and secondary) who had severe thrombocytopenia (platelet count <10 x109/L) and who demonstrated a platelet count response to corticosteroids or IVIG. The cause of thrombocytopenia was not easily identifiable among patients with mild ITP, familial thrombocytopenia, hypersplenism or liver disease. Misclassification of patients with mild to moderate thrombocytopenia was common. Disclosures No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.
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.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,031 | 0,104 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».