Hemoglobin H identification by high‐performance liquid chromatography in confirmed hemoglobin H disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Among hemoglobin (Hb) H disease cases diagnosed by DNA testing in our hemoglobinopathy laboratory, we have noted instances of unreported Hb H from high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) results of referring laboratories. METHODS: To characterize these issues, we identified all cases of genotypic Hb H disease diagnosed in our laboratory. HPLC chromatograms were reviewed to determine the presence and retention time of the Hb H peak. RESULTS: Hemoglobin H was not reported in 24.2% of patients (23 of 95) with genotypic Hb H disease. The characteristic prerun peak of Hb H was present on review of all eight Variant or Variant II β-thalassemia short-program chromatograms. Elevated Hb F (≥3%) was reported in 14 cases. The Hb H peak was found in the Hb F window in 11 dual program cases. The incorrect identification of Hb H as elevated Hb F resulted in two testing referrals for 'δβ-thalassemia'. CONCLUSIONS: Hemoglobin H may go unreported due to failure to examine for or recognize its peak on Variant or Variant II β-thalassemia short-program chromatograms. Elution of Hb H in the Hb F window resulted in misidentification of Hb H for Hb F and may indicate a Variant II HbA2 /HbA1C program software error. Our findings highlight the need for careful chromatogram inspection and clinical correlation in the diagnosis of Hb H disease.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".