MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4417016420 · doi:10.1182/blood-2025-2660

External validation of an online predictive model for myelodysplastic syndrome

2025· article· en· W4417016420 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Nina Castrogiovanni, Beau Bouliane, Hanan Gerges, Jeffery M. Patterson, Cynthia Wu, Nancy Zhu, Haowei Sun

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2025
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Alberta
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésCytopeniaCohortMyelodysplastic syndromesPredictive valueGold standard (test)AnemiaPredictive value of testsBone marrowRetrospective cohort study

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Single-lineage cytopenia is highly prevalent in the elderly population, with common causes including nutritional deficiency, erythropoietin or thrombopoietin deficiency, inflammation, idiopathic or clonal cytopenias of undetermined significance, or alterations in stem cell physiology. Older studies have shown an estimated prevalence of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) in 30% of unexplained anemia or cytopenia. While bone marrow examination (BME) is the gold standard for the diagnosis of MDS, it is associated with risks, costs, subjective interpretation and non-diagnostic findings. A simple non-invasive diagnostic algorithm has been developed to guide the pretest probability of MDS, with the potential to obviate unnecessary BME. We performed an external validation in a cohort of patients who underwent BME for cytopenia. Aims: To examine the diagnostic accuracy of the MDS prediction algorithm in unexplained cytopenias. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we identified consecutive BMEs evaluated for unexplained cytopenias by the Department of Pathology at the University of Alberta (2022-2023). We included patients >50 years who underwent BME for single or multi-lineage cytopenias. Those with known causes of cytopenia, or high suspicion of hematologic malignancy (e.g. circulating blasts, abnormal peripheral blood immunophenotype) were excluded. We estimated the pretest probability of MDS using the web-based predictive algorithm established by Oster et al, categorized as probable MDS, indeterminate, and probably not MDS. We considered BME findings of MDS and myelodysplastic/myeloproliferative neoplasms (MDS/MPN) as positive cases, and all others to be negative cases. Sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV) and negative predictive value (NPV) were calculated. Two hematologists independently reviewed each case to adjudicate whether BME changed management. Institutional Research Ethics Board approval was obtained. Results: Overall, 64 patients who underwent BME for cytopenias were included, with a median age of 71 years, and 42 (66%) male. Indications for BME included: bi- or pancytopenia in 40 (63%), isolated anemia in 19 (30%), isolated neutropenia in 3 (5%), and isolated thrombocytopenia in 2 (3%). Thirteen (20%) patients had additional indications for BME, including adenopathy/splenomegaly in 9 (14%), monocytosis in 5 (8%), constitutional symptoms in 2 (3%), and elevated tryptase in 1 (2%). The diagnostic yield of abnormal BME was 36 (56%), while 18 (28%) were normal/ benign, and 10 (16%) non-diagnostic. Abnormal BME findings included MDS or MDS/MPN (26; 41%), lymphoid neoplasms (4; 6%), clonal hematopoiesis (3; 5%), acute leukemia (2; 3%), and metastatic cancer (1; 2%). The model predicted probable MDS in 25 (39%), probably not MDS in 23 (36%), and indeterminate in 16 (25%). Sensitivity, specificity (excluding indeterminate cases), PPV, and NPV were 77%, 61%, 52%, and 82%, respectively. While 19/23 (83%) cases of “probably not MDS” were correctly categorized as non-MDS, only 11 (48%) BMEs could have been safely avoided without missed pathologies (i.e. normal BME). The rest included: 4 (17%) misclassified MDS cases, another 4 (17%) non-diagnostic marrows requiring repeat BMEs, 3 (13%) lymphoid neoplasm, 1 (4%) clonal hematopoiesis. The model correctly predicted MDS in 13/25 (52%) “probable MDS” cases, 4 (16%) had another hematologic neoplasm, 4 (16%) non-diagnostic, only 4 (16%) were normal. At last follow-up, 19 (30%) were deceased. Of the 26 MDS cases, 19 (73%) BMEs led to changes in management, including initiation of hypomethylating agents (13; 50%), hydroxyurea (4; 15%), erythropoietin stimulating agents (3; 12%). In contrast, 7/26 (27%) did not undergo changes in management following BME, due to lower-risk MDS or unfit for chemotherapy. Conclusions: We found that nearly a third of BMEs ordered for unexplained cytopenia had low pretest probability for MDS when applying the MDS risk prediction model. Of these, half could have been obviated without missing any pathologies. We confirmed a high NPV in keeping with prior reports. PPV and specificity were lower in our study, possibly explained by non-diagnostic samples and acute leukemia classified in the “non-MDS” group. Prospective studies are needed to evaluate the role of this model in aiding clinical decision-making.

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 enseignants

Ni 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.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,013
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,031
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,013
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,069

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0130,031
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0020,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,001

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.

Tête enseignante Opus0,030
Tête enseignante GPT0,318
Écart entre enseignants0,288 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_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

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2025
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research→Travaux en français237 207→